Re: Proposed Excessive Treatment Rule-Language

[Guest guest]

Vern, et. al. I've add some suggested changes to talk over.

"Proposed Excessive Treatment Rule-Language"

Dan, Sherm (see you tomorrow), Willard, , and colleagues attached is a 1st draft of the language for a proposed "Excessive Treatment" rule which I have written.

I don't believe the problem we have is that of "Excessive Fees" but rather that of poorly documented lengthy care which dribbles on and on.

I would like your comments on this document as I don't believe many have read it though the OBCE recently sent it out in a recent mailer. OregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

[Guest guest]

Wonderful ....dat be why it's call a first draft!

Vern

"Proposed Excessive Treatment Rule-Language"

Dan, Sherm (see you tomorrow), Willard, , and colleagues attached is a 1st draft of the language for a proposed "Excessive Treatment" rule which I have written.

I don't believe the problem we have is that of "Excessive Fees" but rather that of poorly documented lengthy care which dribbles on and on.

I would like your comments on this document as I don't believe many have read it though the OBCE recently sent it out in a recent mailer. OregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. OregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

[Guest guest]

Danno;

Luv your recent posts. You

bring up a number of interesting subjects that merit some serious thought.

Actions that can have lasting consequences should not be made in an effort to

offer up appeasement to people whose self interest has never permitted fair

treatment of our profession. It can be argued that we need to educate

them, and I surely don’t argue against anyone who wants to bring an

understanding of chiropractic to the insurance industry. I just don’t

think that’s what the game is about. There is such power in the

world of chiropractic, and I don’t mean the techniques that comprise the

history of chiropractic. I mean the principle of quality

interference. The idea that both dis-ease, and disease arise from

confusion of the body’s regulatory systems is an informational model of

illness known in our profession as “quality interference”. The

real heritage of chiropractic is this understanding; that because this is true,

as chiropractic developments it will produce techniques that do this more and

more perfectly, until eventually most problems can be resolved by correcting

informational disturbances that glitch the software that runs the body.

What tremendous progress that is.

A problem arises when unnecessary

documents are hewn of stone and become the Ten Commandments by which chiropractic

is hamstrung and defined into a corner by people within the profession who, out

of fear, greed, or ignorance would castrate the profession in trying to save

it. I share your concern that this could happen and agree we should all

give this matter serious attention. The same issue effects the over-defining

of what chiropractic is and is not. Dr. Jim said that chiropractic

is about the principle (discussed above), not about technique. If we

define what technique is chiropractic based on what has been available in the

past, we can only guarantee that nothing further will be available in the

future. If a set of procedures that is consistent with chiropractic scope

of practice (any chiropractic technique that depends on major cavity surgery is

out) is not only safe, but can produce a reasonable argument and demonstration

that it corrects “quality interference”, then that is a technique

that belongs in the vast repertory of chiropractic techniques. We could

easily find ourselves a profession that sacrifices its whole future unnecessarily

by over-defining itself and limiting its future development and well being.

Thanks again for your great posts.

Best regards,

Les

From: D Beebe,

D.C. [mailto:res0btan@...]

Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:21

PM

Vern Saboe

Cc: Dr. Willard Bertrand, D.C.;

Sherman; john collins; Les Feinberg

Subject: Re:

" Proposed Excessive Treatment Rule-Language "

Verne:

There has yet to be a sufficient argument as to the why this

is needed. I believe that is what was articulated in the

previous posts/concerns.

You are attempting to put a neat little package together

here that could cause problems down the road. Have you put

thought/consideration into energetic techniques such as NMT or Acupuncture etc.

What about surface EMG, neurocolometer, etc

I note language of musts and shall rather than may or

consider.

While medicine is going the route of evidenced based

outcomes what makes you believe that this is the only assessment tool that is

of a reasonable nature? I personally get adjusted 1x/week or more and have

for years. If someone got a burr up their arse and wanted to hang my DC could a

case not be made against him following your proposed rule? or does this rule

just apply to PIP people? If you have documented a condition that

warrants supportive care why would you need to re-eval every 4-6 weeks?

The rule that you have proposed here, in my mind, would

apply to acute injuries only. It is dangerous in that you have so closely

defined what is excessive that you leave no room for board members or other

regulators to utilize common sense in dealing with various scenarios.

Les... Care to comment about energetic tx protocols?

Danno

Danno

" Proposed Excessive Treatment Rule-Language "

Dan, Sherm (see you tomorrow), Willard, , and colleagues

attached is a 1st draft of the language for a proposed " Excessive Treatment " rule

which I have written.

I don't believe the problem we have is that of

" Excessive Fees " but rather that of poorly documented lengthy

care which dribbles on and on.

I would like your comments on this document as I don't

believe many have read it though the OBCE recently sent it out in a recent

mailer.

OregonDCs

rules:

1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose

of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal

attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.

2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and

last name.

3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could

end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy,

print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another

member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been

removed.