• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

State medical groups resist naturopaths' licensure push

Organized medicine says licensing advances can jeopardize public safety.

By Myrle Croasdale, amednews staff. March 27, 2006.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

Billing themselves as primary care practitioners who use natural therapies to prevent and treat disease, naturopaths are steadily extending their geographical reach and practice scope.

So far, 14 states and the District of Columbia have licensed naturopaths. Idaho most recently established a naturopath license, passing a bill in April 2005. The American Assn. of Naturopathic Physicians hopes New York will be the next to license the practitioners, with a Senate committee recently passing a bill the state medical society opposes.

New York is one of eight states considering legislation that would license naturopaths or expand their scope of practice, according to Netscan's Health Policy Tracking Service. Virginia will consider a bill in 2007.

Ultimately, the AANP would like to see naturopaths licensed in all 50 states to the full extent of their scope of practice, which the AANP says includes prescribing medication, attending childbirth and performing minor office-based surgery. These are activities organized medicine says fall under physicians' purview. In general, organized medicine doesn't agree licensing naturopaths is the best way to protect patients.

The American Medical Association doesn't have specific policy regarding naturopaths, but it opposes the practice of medicine by those without the appropriate training.

In some instances when bills have arisen, state medical societies, for example those in California and Idaho, have taken a neutral stand on naturopaths' legislative initiatives but only after amendments to bills limited naturopaths' scope of practice through requirements such as physician supervision or collaboration. Before the amendments, the groups opposed the bills in their states.