The following are informative minutes of the May 5, 2004 meeting of the WCA Board of Directors. Please note that these minutes may not cover all of the subjects discussed or motions passed by the board. The portion of the minutes dealing with confidential attorney-client communications, personnel issues, legislative strategies, communications with legislators, communications with government employees, political contribution strategies and specific complaints or information about individual practitioners is considered confidential by the board. WCA members may obtain detailed minutes by contacting the WCA office.

 

 

Board of Directors

May 6, 2004

Minutes

 

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by WCA President Sherry Walker at the WCA building in Madison. Member absent Dr. Bradley.

 

Motion: Moved by Bronston, seconded by McMahon to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2004 meeting. Motion carried.

 

 

Discussion with Governor Doyle

 

The Board welcomed a visit by Governor Doyle who expressed his complete satisfaction in the outcome of the defeat of AB 814. In addition, the board and the Governor had the opportunity to exchange views on the direction of health care reform.

 

Moved by Bronston, seconded by Adams to come out of executive session.

 

Guidelines Presentation

 

The Board participated in a discussion with Gene Lewis, DC who is the Chair of the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP). CCGPP is involved in a national effort to draft “best practices” guidelines and would like the financial support of state associations. In preparing for the presentation, the board raised the following questions:

 

Best Practices Questions

 

Background Questions

 

What are the names of the people who mandated CCGPP to develop these guidelines? What criteria did CCGPP utilize to choose the participants?

 

Why are prominent subluxation-centered teachers, authors, technique developers and researchers absent?

 

Why are so many who were involved in Mercy involved again?

 

Will you publish the names of the individuals responsible for each chapter?

 

Will the clinical and/or academic faculty of the colleges be asked to review or contribute?

 

There are guidelines for vertebral subluxation, produced by CCP, which have been accepted for inclusion in the National guidelines Clearinghouse. Will you invite the CCP people to participate?

 

Will the document address the issue of the severity of an injury?

 

Will the document give a range of treatment that is dependent on the severity of an injury?

 

In the real world, chiropractors are confronted with QA guidelines that require them to limit care in order to stay on a managed care panel. The guidelines used in the QA process are often set on an arbitrary basis. How will the document address this concern?

 

What colleges have expressed support for this project? How will the document be viewed as credible if all the colleges do not accept it?

 

Is this document aimed at the practicing DC or the student? If it is aimed at the student, is CCGPP concerned that it will take too long to have a meaningful impact in the field?

 

Who provided the initial funding for the document?

 

How is COCSA involved in the management of the document?

 

Is any one involved with this project receiving compensation for his/her work? If so, please specify the amount.

 

Are individuals reimbursed for anything other than out of pocket expenses for travel? If so, please specify the item/s eligible for reimbursement.

 

What is the Monica Smith survey?

 

What will occur if the sufficient funds are not raised to support this project?

 

Your letter dated 2/27/04 contends that the profession is concerned with a number of issues. What specifically has CCGPP identified?

 

Document Writing

 

Is there one Best Practices document that you are using as a model?

 

The guidelines you gave us for substance abuse are not guidelines at all but documentation of a workshop on how to use guidelines on substance abuse.

 

The interferential guidelines are obviously incomplete, and in draft form. There is no indication of who the author is or how much additional information will be written. In addition, there is a claim on page 82 that IFC is not indicated for LBP, based upon one study, Werners, 1999. After reading Werners, I would disagree with the guideline’s ultimate conclusion that Werner’s study represents Grade II evidence that IFC in not indicated for LBP. Finally, there is extensive literature about IFC and pain/LBP that was not included…why?

 

What topics will be addressed?

 

Who will address subluxation in this document? How will it be defined? Will they survey doctors about their needs and attitudes?

 

Assuming the conclusions are based upon evidence based practices, how can the committee focus on “all conditions” seen in a chiropractic office? It seems that by making this “all conditions” statement that any conditions not addressed will be considered not to be within a chiropractor’s scope of practice.

 

Will the document address chiropractic techniques? If so, what criteria will be used to establish the credibility of a technique?

 

Will the document explicitly state that chiropractors are ineffective at treating some conditions?

 

Document Review

 

What mechanism of evaluation is to be utilized to format the final product?

 

Will the document attempt to explain the philosophy of chiropractic?

 

Mercy was based on the opinion of 35 or so people – how many will decide this time?

 

Will there be open forums where any interested DC can present evidence?

 

Will any chiropractor who wishes be permitted to participate in the review process?

 

What is the process to approve a particular chapter?

 

We are concerned that distributor has been selected so that the document can be rapidly disseminated. How can we be sure that everyone will have an opportunity to comment before the document is released?

 

Will the evidence based information used in the document be available for field doctors to review before the document is released?

 

Will the insurance industry find the document credible if it does not have some sort of limitations on care?

 

Practice Impact of the Document

 

Will state and national associations be asked to endorse the document? If a majority of state/national associations do not endorse the document, what effect will that have on its distribution?

 

Will this document be marketed? If so, what is the anticipated price? If not, how will it be distributed and who will bear the cost?

 

What steps have been taken to insure that this will not be construed as a “minimum Standard” or “maximum practice guideline?

 

Will there be a standing committee or board that will review the “best practices” literature on an on-going basis, with new editions or supplements published as warranted by new evidence?

 

Dr. Lewis will report on the board’s questions to the full CCGPP.

 

Motion: Moved by Adams, seconded by Douglas to contribute $50,000 to CCGPP upon the satisfactory review of the “best Practices” document by the WCA board. Motion carried.

 

Animal “Chiropractic”

 

The board reviewed the apology received by of a veterinarian who had advertised that he provided “chiropractic” services to animal. He assured the WCA that, having been informed that the use of the term “chiropractic” was reserved for chiropractors; he would immediately change his advertising.

 

Green Bay Packer Advertising

 

The board reviewed a proposal by WTMJ to advertise on the Green Bay Packer Radio network. The board determined that the cost of this type of advertising was beyond the means of the WCA.

 

Blue Cross – High Cost Traction

 

The board reviewed the memo sent to WCA members on billing and audit issues related to spinal decompression technology.

 

Motion: Moved by Bronston, seconded by Sleight to authorize the replacement of the WCA roof. Motion carried.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:15 p.m.