Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adjunctive Modalities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears call for clarity on lasers, light, sound and other devices used in acupuncture care
Summary
Stakeholders told the board many clinics already use lasers, red light, sound therapy and other devices and asked for guidance; board staff said statutory scope is set by the Legislature and encouraged profession-led proposals and documentation of safety and training.
The California Acupuncture Board licensing committee opened discussion on modern adjunctive devices used in acupuncture — including therapeutic lasers, red/infrared light, magnets, sound therapy and therapeutic ultrasound — after multiple public commenters said the modalities are increasingly used in clinical practice but exist in a regulatory gray area.
Stakeholders said practitioners and continuing-education providers are already teaching the devices, and they asked the board for guidance so clinicians do not inadvertently violate scope-of-practice limits. “People are practicing this, and I want to keep people from not violating their scope,” said Neil Miller during public comment, urging the board to help clarify what can be used legally while the profession pursues statutory or regulatory change.
Executive Officer Ben Bodea and legal counsel reiterated that the board enforces existing statutory scope and that changes to include explicit new modalities typically require legislative action; the board can clarify ambiguous terms through regulation when that is consistent with statute. Staff suggested the profession gather evidence — educational curricula, safety data and state examples — to present to the board and to potential legislative sponsors.
Marilyn Allen, representing the American Acupuncture Council, asked stakeholders to compile safety and training standards and noted potential contraindications. “There’s a long list [of contraindications] — it includes things like Tylenol,” Allen said, emphasizing that training and patient-safety guidance would be needed before broad acceptance.
On therapeutic ultrasound, commenters described differing clinical practices (therapeutic versus diagnostic ultrasound) and requested confirmation whether therapeutic use falls within current scope absent explicit statutory language. Staff noted a prior legal opinion exists in the board’s materials and asked stakeholders to share documentation and research to help the committee evaluate whether regulation or a statutory proposal is appropriate.
No regulatory or statutory action was taken at the meeting. Staff invited stakeholders to submit proposals and safety data for future committee consideration.
