Acupuncture enforcement committee reviews draft consumer guide; stakeholders urge clearer, modernized public materials

The California Acupuncture Board Enforcement Committee on a stakeholder session reviewed a working draft of a consumer brochure intended to explain what licensed acupuncturists may do and how patients can seek recourse from violations.

Committee Chair Ruben Osorio opened the session and staff presented a draft “consumer’s guide to acupuncture” described as a working draft bearing a “DRAFT” watermark. Staff said the document had been edited to “keep the text that is appropriate to the role and function of the board” and to emphasize consumer rights and remedies under the Acupuncture Act.

Stakeholders and board members provided detailed feedback. Dr. Yongping Chen, President of the board, said the brochure “will be very helpful for the purpose of public protection.” Neil Miller, representing the California Acupuncture Traditional Medical Association, urged more technical accuracy and objected to some deletions from older brochures: “I would like to know at whose direction and what is the logic there,” he said, asking for additional committee review rather than immediate approval. Marilyn Allen of the American Acupuncture Council told the committee she agreed with updating the brochure but urged a modern, attention‑grabbing format and suggested web and QR-code options.

Speakers recommended several specific changes and additions. Comments raised these recurring requests: - Clarify scope and limits: multiple stakeholders asked that the brochure clearly distinguish what the board regulates (entry-level competency and violations under the Acupuncture Act) from professional standards or “excellence,” which they said should be described by professional associations. Staff reiterated that “the board’s role is entry level competency. The profession’s role is excellence in acupuncture.” - Safety and informed consent: commenters urged inclusion of common, foreseeable risks (for example, bruising, burns from moxibustion, cupping injuries, and needling complications) and a clear note on infection-control and sterile needle use. One commenter recommended content used by malpractice carriers as a reference for safety issues. - Science and plain-language explanations: several commenters recommended referencing modern neuromechanistic research alongside traditional explanations; stakeholders suggested diagrams and concise science-forward language to help younger audiences and consumers understand how acupuncture can work. - Design and distribution: stakeholders repeatedly suggested a digital-first approach with a short printed tri-fold for clinics, QR links to expanded web content, and materials tailored to different audiences. - Accuracy of clinical details: Neil Miller objected to a specific sentence listing needle lengths (“half inch to 3 inch”), saying that presenting a fixed needle-length range could mislead consumers and recommended removing or revising such specifics.

Staff reported the draft had been posted digitally and that physical copies would be available in the meeting room. The committee invited associations and individuals to send suggested text or mockups to acupuncture@dca.ca.gov; staff said the board does not recommend individual licensees but will publish consumer-facing material that identifies the board’s enforcement role and how to file a complaint.

The committee discussed how to advance the draft. Dr. Chen moved to refer the brochure for further discussion to the full board; the motion was later withdrawn and no formal vote was taken. The committee agreed to report the discussion as an enforcement committee update at the next full board meeting and to continue stakeholder engagement via email and website submissions.

The board’s staff asked associations to provide consumer materials the groups already use; staff said they had reviewed association websites and had received few submissions. Stakeholders and board members said they preferred that the board limit its brochure to what the board is authorized to state publicly (what patients may expect in terms of minimum competence and what is not permitted) while leaving fuller clinical descriptions and advocacy to professional associations.

Next steps outlined by staff include continuing to accept stakeholder drafts and mockups, reposting updated drafts on the board website, and including a summary of the stakeholder input in the full board’s executive report. No regulatory change or final approval occurred at the meeting.