Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education And Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears broad support and caution on entry‑level doctorate and unified degree titles
Summary
Stakeholders, educators and committee members discussed proposals to raise the entry-level degree for acupuncturists to a doctorate and to standardize degree titles; the board outlined legal and practical constraints and asked stakeholders to coordinate next steps.
The California Acupuncture Board Licensing Committee spent a substantial portion of its meeting discussing whether to raise the entry-level degree for acupuncturists to a doctorate and whether to standardize degree titles.
Why this matters: Degree level and title affect public perception, interstate portability, education cost and school enrollments. Several associations and school leaders urged a move to a doctoral entry-level standard and a single, recognizable degree title; staff warned that statutory and logistical issues will require broader coordination.
Public commenters and educators expressed strong support. Jerome Jeng, representing Hembrough Medical University, said the profession risks being divided and urged formation of a unified doctoral standard: “If we still refuse to raise the acupuncture risk to qualifications to a doctorate degree today, I can predict that in a dozen years, the title of a acupuncturist will no longer exist,” he said. Philip Young, president of California University Silicon Valley, said his school will start an entry‑level doctoral program and urged the profession to “get catch up” with other health professions.
Multiple speakers proposed specific degree-name candidates. Longtime practitioner Neil Miller urged a name that communicates integrated practice and proposed “doctor of acupuncture and integrative medicine (DACIM)” as a clear, public‑facing label. Other commenters suggested “doctor of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine (DACH)” or a simpler “doctor of acupuncture (DAC).”
Board staff and members cautioned that the board cannot unilaterally change statutory language that defines license titles. Legal counsel and staff noted the current licensure name in law is “licensed acupuncturist.” Staff reminded the committee that changing the scope, degree requirements or licensure title may require regulatory or legislative action and asked stakeholders to coalesce behind a proposal. Staff also raised secondary consequences: program cost, enrollment effects, and potential impacts on financial aid and gainful‑employment reporting.
Several commenters offered a compromise proposal for implementation. Multiple speakers suggested a phased approach and “grandfather” provisions for experienced practitioners, for example by permitting practitioners with an established practice history and continuing education to use a new title while the education changes take effect for new graduates.
No formal action was taken. The committee asked staff to continue collecting stakeholder feedback, suggested a possible public survey, and said the item would return for further discussion at a future meeting.
