A House Not So Divided?

Editor's Note: "A House Divided?" (May 1 issue) provoked significant response from readers. Here are several of the surprisingly similar comments we received.

Dear Editor:

As I read the recent editorial, "A House Divided," I could find nothing in the answers provided by ACA President Tony Hamm, DC, that suggests any deviation from ACA policy. As per Dr. Hamm, the ACA has not and is not promulgating any effort to include prescriptive drugs as part of any scope-of-practice change. However, recommending use of the term prescriptive authority clarifies that doctors of chiropractic most certainly do prescribe many treatments (physical therapy modalities, TENS units, orthotic devices, in-clinic and home exercise programs, refrain from work or activity, etc.).

The health care and reimbursement arenas understand the use of the term prescribe to mean "recommended by a licensed health care practitioner," usually of the doctoral level.  I found complete clarity in Dr. Hamm's explanation in this regard.

As for the new college established, I also see how this can benefit our chiropractic clinicians in having an additional resource for better understanding how pharmaceutical and over-the-counter medications may affect how we treat our patients. It is important to understand that some medications may serve as precautions to certain treatments being administered within our clinics. Patients are often asking questions of their chiropractic physician about medications being taken.

Suggesting that we should answer nothing or appear ignorant of a basic knowledge of certain medications does not serve our profession well, as we strive to achieve cultural authority with regard to primary care or primary contact physician status. Having more knowledge in order to better serve our patients sure seems like a "best practices" model.

Since leaving the ACA House of Delegates in 2011 as a past president, I have watched closely the actions and work done by the ACA. I am proud of the continued hard work and leadership being given by the current ACA leadership team and the House of Delegates. The work is enormous, often thankless, but necessary to ensure that our chiropractic profession is safeguarded by a national trade association. For my dues dollars, there is still no other choice but ACA!

Glenn Manceaux, DC
ACA President
(2007-2009)

Dear Editor:

First and foremost, I'm in favor of chiropractic physicians having prescriptive rights including pharmacological rights. For nearly 15 years, I have worked for a hospital system that utilizes my full scope of practice. I have enjoyed this integrative approach and have found that on more than one occasion, having medications available for the patient as an adjunct of my care was extremely helpful.

I know for a fact that with the shortage of primary care providers, chiropractors could fill the needs in these areas, along with the very distinct services we provide as DCs. Since medications would not be the only tool in our belt, so to speak, we would be more prudent on the utilization and dispensing of these products compared to our counterparts; and would be more willing to discuss other options, including wellness options the patient should consider.

For chiropractic to continue to grow in this ever-evolving health care environment, we need to give serious consideration about expanding our scope of practice to meet the needs of these health care gaps.

Brad Brooks, DC
Waterloo, Iowa

Dear Editor:

Almost every patient who comes into our offices is on some type of medication. For chiropractors to bury their heads in the sand and ignore that fact as part of the consideration of patient care is an ignorant position. I applaud the ACA for trying to raise the standards in our profession and push us out of an outdated mindset.

Kelly Hutson, DC
Dexter, Mo.