Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scope Of Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Licensing committee opens multi‑stakeholder review of scope issues including manual therapy and dry‑needling
Summary
The board’s licensing committee opened a multi‑stakeholder review of scope‑of‑practice questions — from manual therapy/tuina and cupping to dry needling and point‑stimulation devices — and recommended continued outreach and a cautious path to any regulatory or legislative change.
The California Acupuncture Board’s licensing committee convened a broad discussion of scope‑of‑practice topics at its committee meeting prior to the full board session and reported the conversation to the board on March 7. The committee framed the work as a multi‑stakeholder effort to clarify practice boundaries and public protections.
Committee discussion covered multiple modalities and terms that arise in clinics and public discourse, including “Asian massage”/tuina (manual therapy), trigger‑point needling and “dry needling,” acupotomy, cupping, bleeding/therapeutic blood withdrawal, point‑stimulation devices (heat, magnets, light/lasers, sound) and joint needling. Board members and public commenters encouraged clearer, modernized terminology (for example “manual therapy” instead of older language) and recommended the board coordinate with stakeholders to clarify which techniques fall within the acupuncture scope and which may require other credentials or legislative change.
The committee heard that some of the reported confusion derives from statutory and regulatory language that dates from earlier decades; members said clarifying language would improve patient safety, provider education and interprofessional understanding. Several public commenters and association leaders urged the board to convene targeted stakeholder workshops and to seek input from associations, schools, medical stakeholders and, where relevant, the Medical Board or physical‑therapy boards on overlapping practices.
Committee leadership reported no immediate regulatory decision and told the full board the committee will continue working with stakeholders and legal staff to identify options, including potential regulatory text or legislative approaches if the scope clarification requires statutory change.
The committee emphasized it intends to prioritize public safety — not turf — and encouraged outreach and education while legal and policy work proceeds.
