|
Background, purpose and frequently asked questions about
the Maryland Consumer Health Freedom Bill, a Safe Harbor Bill
Background
Medical practice law in Maryland
does not distinguish Complementary alternative Medicine (CAM). The law states “(i) Diagnosing, healing, treating,
preventing, prescribing for, or removing any physical, mental, or emotional
ailment or supposed ailment of an individual “ . In summary, health
care licensing law in Maryland
only addresses the practice of the high risk medical arts, and massage. At
the same time, courts and some state regulators (DHMH) have sought to apply
these licensing laws to those who practice unlicensed natural arts, trades,
and professions, regardless of the differences between the paradigms of the
licensed and unlicensed practices and irrespective of the risks of the
practices.
The enforcement and threats of enforcement of these
licensing laws have resulted in unacceptable limitations on the public's
access to natural and complementary practices that have been used for
decades in Maryland. At a time when more Americans than at any
time in history are choosing natural approaches to caring for themselves,
supporters of CAM
Health Freedom bill believe that Maryland should modernize its laws to
explicitly protect the unlicensed practice of trades and professions that
do not pose a demonstrable risk to the health and safety of those who use
these practices.
It is estimated that 425 million Americans used
providers of unconventional care in 1990 (JAMA. Volume 328:246-252 (4), January 28, 1993), made more
visits to unconventional providers in 1990 than to all primary care
physicians--425 million visits compared to 388 million (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-246.html)
and a follow up study
showed that number increased to 629 million in 1997 (JAMA. 2000 Feb 16, 283 (7):884-6 )
Purpose
The purpose of the proposed
bill is to provide consumers in Maryland
with access to information about a wide range of complementary and
alternative practices and to the practitioners themselves without unnecessary
and costly over-regulation. Similar legislation respecting an individual's
right to choose the practice and practitioner of their choice exists in Minnesota,
Rhode Island, and California, Louisiana
(Act # 334 bill #189 Senator Brome), and Oklahoma, and Idaho and is under consideration by consumers or
legislators in over 30 states
Most medical practices acts
have provided limited exemptions for those engaged in healing services of a
religious nature. The exemption, however, typically has been limited to
those practicing under the tenets of an established church and has not been
extended to complementary and alternative ...providers. Indeed, some claims
by providers purporting to be practicing "religion" rather than
"medicine" have been rejected, on the grounds that patients have
come seeking health improvement and that the concepts of
"diagnosis" and "treatment" in the definition of
practicing "medicine" are broad enough to encompass such
providers.."
Frequently asked questions
1.
What is the cost of this bill?
The state will not be
spending taxpayer dollars or forcing the costs of services to rise by
over-regulating any complementary or alternative practice.
2. Does this legislation
protect the public from unethical, fraudulent or dangerous practices or
practitioners?
The legislation respects all local, state and federal laws that protect the
public from harm and fraud. The proposed legislation explicitly forbids the
practice of certain prohibited acts.
3. Does this bill seem to
regulate spiritual healing practices?
This bill will require all practitioners to abide by the disclosure
requirement that they are not licensed by the state, and also to avoid the
prohibited conduct.
4. Will the proposed legislation affect the cost of malpractice insurance?
No. This bill will not affect whether or not a practitioner chooses to
carry malpractice insurance. Some do and some do not, as is the case with
licensed practitioners.
5. Does this bill attempt to
change the setup for currently licensed practices?
No. This proposed bill respects current licensing laws. In doing so, it
acknowledges and affirms that many people choose to have licensed
physicians, chiropractors, massage therapists, and acupuncturists while at
the same time working with unlicensed complementary and alternative health
care practitioners.
6. Are any of the states considering CAM protection bills with minor
government role?
There are professions such as the Naturopathic Physicians,
and the Massage Therapy Association that work to get licensing bills for
their professions, often at the expense of allowing others without those
special educational requirement to practice their trade. This was one
of the reasons safe harbor bills without educational mandates were
launched, because many people have many different types of educations and
as long as they are not doing things that pose an imminent risk of harm to
the public then they can practice under safe harbor bills. For example,
CA has a licensed naturopathic doctor law in place now and also a safe
harbor bill, so the Naturoapthic Physicians can practice medicine and the
traditional naturopaths practice under the safe harbor bill.
7. Does State Government play any role in regulating
or disciplining CAM practitioners?
Yes, to a limited degree. For example, Minnesota
has a safe harbor bill. If the government receives a complaint
about an unlicensed person practicing then the Office of Complementary and
Alternative Health Care within the Department of Health investigate the
complaints rather than the medical board or attorney general as in
CA. In most states right now, the medical board or Attorney General
investigate unlicensed practitoners. But in MN we have a special office
that does that. MN is still a safe harbor bill that does not mandate
particular education or sign up with the government. It is just an
office that takes the complaints rather than the medical board.
8. Will the proposed legislation affect the cost of
malpractice insurance?
No. This bill will not affect whether or not a practitioner chooses to
carry malpractice insurance. Some do and some do not, as is the case with
licensed practitioners.
9. Does this bill attempt to
change the setup for currently licensed practices?
No. This proposed bill respects current licensing laws. In doing so, it
acknowledges and affirms that many people choose to have licensed
physicians, chiropractors, massage therapists, and acupuncturists while at
the same time working with unlicensed natural and complementary providers.
10. Does this legislation protect the public from
unethical, fraudulent or dangerous practices or practitioners?
Yes. The legislation respects
all local, state and federal laws that protect the public from unethical,
fraudulent, and high risk practices. The proposed legislation explicitly
forbids the practice of high risk or licensed professions by providers who
are registered to practice natural and complementary care.
11. Does this bill seem to
regulate spiritual healing practices?
No. This bill does not regulate the way in which any provider practices; it
only protects the rights of consumers to decide what they will do and whom
they will see for natural and complementary care.
Spiritual healers should be aware of the following from Michael H. Cohen's
book Beyond Complementary Medicine: Legal and Ethical Perspectives on
Health Care and Human Evolution. Cohen is Director of Legal Programs at
the Harvard Medical School Division for Research and Education in
Complementary and Integrative Medical Therapies, and a Lecturer at Harvard
Medical School.
12. What this bill will
do?
(a). Protect people’s access to traditional,
cultural, complementary and alternative health care therapies
(b) Protect the practitioner’s right to practice traditional, cultural,
complementary and alternative health care therapies.
(c) This is NOT a
bill that will create licensing and regulation.
|
