Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill to put chiropractors' limited acupuncture practice into statute
Summary
After extended floor debate about training and safety, the Utah Senate voted 19–7 on Feb. 20, 2004 to advance Senate Bill 249 to third reading. Sponsor Sen. Butters said the bill simply moves existing rule language into statute; opponents warned 200 hours may be insufficient for safe acupuncture practice.
Senate Bill 249, a measure by Sen. Butters to place into statute a limited authorization for licensed chiropractors to practice acupuncture with specified training, advanced to third reading on Feb. 20, 2004 after a 19–7 vote.
Supporters said the bill clarifies and stabilizes an existing practice that has been allowed under administrative rule and an Attorney General opinion. Sponsor Sen. Butters said the measure "takes the language that's in the rule and puts it in statute that says if they're licensed, they can do this. That's the bill." He cited a January 2004 Attorney General opinion concluding that Utah law allows a licensed chiropractor to practice acupuncture and told colleagues he had copies of the opinion available.
Opponents pressed safety and training concerns. Senator Knudson argued that acupuncture is an invasive procedure and warned that needles can "perforate vital structures," saying the difference between a chiropractor's 200-hour acupuncture exposure and the longer training acupuncturists receive raised consumer-protection issues. Senator Stevenson questioned whether 200 hours is adequate compared with other training standards cited on the floor (members referenced figures in the hundreds to thousands of hours).
Floor debate also recounted historical legislative actions and Administrative Rules Committee research going back to the 1980s and the late 1990s. Committee staff materials (Art Hunsaker) and legislative history were referenced to explain how rules and statutes had evolved, and members debated whether codifying the practice in statute was preferable to leaving it to administrative rulemaking.
The Senate cleared the bill to the third-reading calendar by roll call: recorded as 19 yeas and 7 nays. Some senators recommended referring the broader policy question to the Occupational and Professional Licensure interim committee for further study of appropriate training standards.
The next step for SB 249 is third reading on the Senate calendar, where final passage would be decided.
