Rep Tara Mack,
Minnesota Health and Humans Services Reform Committee“Greetings,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns regarding HF1334, a bill that would modify the current chiropractic scope of practice in Minnesota. My intent in authoring the bill is not to expand the scope of the current practice of chiropractic in Minnesota. The bill is an attempt to consolidate the various laws defining the current scope of chiropractic, make certain that the law reflects the current enforcement practices of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and to define what is uniquely chiropractic.
I want to make a few things very clear, I will not move my bill forward if I believe it expands the scope of chiropractic practice in Minnesota, in fact the Minnesota Chiropractic Association has consistently stated that they do not intend to expand the current scope. The MCA has asked for people to share specific concerns about how the proposed language would do that. The MCA has been meeting with groups that have raised specific, legitimate issues. Please review HF1334 and amendment H1334A that I added to the bill last year. HF1334 as amended is the current proposal. This language has been available to the public for almost a year on the legislative website.
Also, as I am not interested in expanding the chiropractic scope, I would also not support the limiting of the current scope either. Accordingly, I do not intend to get into a discussion of the "philosophy" of chiropractic treatment, as I do not intend to expand or restrict the current scope of practice.
Aside from the fact that some have the mistaken impression that we are expanding the scope of chiropractic practice in Minnesota, there are a few other specific criticisms I have heard about the bill and want to address:
1. The right to prescribe drugs. The proposed scope DOES NOT allow chiropractors to prescribe drugs. I would not support this and it has not been proposed or even discussed. In fact, the proposed scope includes new language that states:"' Chiropractic' means the health care discipline that emphasizes the inherent recuperative power of the body to heal itself without the use of drugs or surgery. . ." The language "without the use of drugs" is not in current law, and would make it clear in the new law that chiropractic is the discipline that emphasizes not using drugs.
2. Subluxation. I am not a chiropractor, and I certainly am not an expert on chiropractic issues or conditions such as subluxation. But, I understand that the term "subluxation" and recognizing the uniqueness of chiropractic is important to the profession. The current scope law does not include the word "subluxation" except as it applies to animal chiropractic. The proposed scope, for the first time, would include the term "subluxation" in the chiropractic scope of practice. So, rather than moving away from what chiropractic is, the new scope, in my opinion, actually moves in the other direction of defining what is uniquely chiropractic.
Again, I want to thank you for sharing your general concerns about the scope legislation. I would again, however, ask that you review HF1334, the bill of which I am an author, and provide your specific concerns--i.e. identify the language that you see as problematic--to me so I can better understand your concerns and attempt to address them as I work on this issue.
Sincerely,
Tara Mack
State Representative
District 37A
”
