California acupuncture groups split over proposed doctoral requirement and oppose dry‑needling expansion

A coalition of California acupuncture associations told the California Acupuncture Board on March 26 that the profession is divided over multiple bills now in Sacramento: sponsor groups pushed to raise licensure minimums and secure Medi‑Cal coverage, while other schools, students and accreditors warned that raising hours now could push programs and students into untenable financial positions.

Ryan McCarthy, a registered lobbyist speaking for the California Acupuncture Coalition (CAC), outlined CAC’s 2026 agenda: SB 944 (Sen. Scott Wiener) would remove a phrase that conditions Medi‑Cal acupuncture reimbursement on matching federal funds; AB 1949 (Asm. Alex Lee) would lift a twice‑monthly in‑person cap while keeping a 24‑visit annual limit; and AB 2668 (Asm. Fong) would raise California’s minimum licensure requirement to a Doctor of Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine (DAcCHM) at 3,300 hours with a 2032 effective date. McCarthy said several California programs already meet or exceed 3,300 hours and that the measures aim to broaden hospital integration and access to research funding.

“By raising entry‑level education we hope to improve employment pathways into established hospitals and academic centers,” McCarthy said, adding that OCAC has collected organizational support and is building a coalition for the bills.

But the public comment period that followed became one of the meeting’s longest and most contested sections. Robert Hoffman, president and CEO of USAN University, told the board he had spent months on accreditation standards and warned that increasing program length and cost at a moment when federal graduate lending is being limited will reduce enrollment and accelerate school closures. “Increasing program length and cost without demonstrated outcome improvements reduces enrollment and will constrain our workforce supply,” Hoffman said, urging caution.

Several student representatives and admissions directors echoed that warning: Nathan Lara (admissions director, Yo San/others) and other student commenters said cost and lack of predictable income were the primary barriers for students now and that a 10% increase in program hours could compound debt and deter applicants.

CSOMA President Dr. Julie Tran said her organization supports SB 944 and AB 1949 and is opposed to AB 2497 (the physical‑therapy dry‑needling expansion). CSOMA circulated a student petition opposing AB 2668 (more than 200 signatures submitted) and argued for a more inclusive process that considers students and workforce impacts.

Supporters of AB 2668 — including several school leaders and association representatives — argued higher standards promote professional recognition and facilitate hiring in hospital systems. Dr. Anurag (speaker): “A doctoral entry creates critical thinking and interdisciplinary skills that open institutional employment,” one supporter said.

The board did not take a formal position on any bill at the meeting; members asked staff to bring legislative updates to the next meeting and to include discussion of federal Medicare developments. Board President Yongping Chen also asked for follow‑up on how the state board, schools and associations can collaborate to expand clinical training opportunities in hospital settings.

The session made clear that stakeholders remain far from consensus: supporters point to long‑term professional recognition and research access; opponents warn of immediate financial risks to students and programs if federal aid and lending rules continue to tighten.

Next steps: the board asked staff to track AB 2668, AB 2497, AB 1949 and SB 944 and return with formal legislative reports and options for future agenda discussion.