Newsletters > May 2000 > New Act's Final Version Meets Freedom Goals!

What does the final version of the Complementary and Alternative Health Care Freedom of Access Act look like? Our end product legislation meets our goals and is still our “baby!” We found out that the process of passing successful legislation is akin to a parent’s adventure of raising a newborn. You wouldn’t think a parent’s pride could get any bigger than the day their little bundle was born. But then hearts swell and buttons burst at graduation when their 18-year-old walks down the aisle grinning from ear to ear. Let’s not talk about when they backed in to the neighbors’ Porsche while practicing driving! Yes, we had a few of those challenges with our bill too.

But growing pains or not, our bill is still as beautiful as the day it was introduced into the Minnesota legislature, February 1999. It has been shaped by the climate, expectations and the culture of the state. For example: The first draft of legislation was one page and requested an exemption from the “practice of medicine” criminal charge for healers that were not harmful or fraudulent. This was done in 1995 during the State v. Saunders trials. Seems simple enough. But before it could be introduced, the next drafts were started and came in response to the Board of Medical Practice v. Helen Healy hearings in 1996. These drafts expanded the language requesting that a government entity not be able to take criminal or civil injunctive action against any licensed or unlicensed practitioner without showing harm or fraud. This was consumer driven and the word started to get out about just how outdated the current laws were. The third set of drafts in 1997-98 were drafted specifically so that consumers would not lose access to natural therapies due to restrictive or unnecessary licensure laws. These drafts created a new model of legislation for all the complementary and alternative health care community and was 6-7 pages long. It included “right to practice” language for practitioners and proper “disclosures and informed consent” for consumers. The fourth drafts in 1998 were direct responses to preliminary discussions with legislators who recommended that there be a special office that could direct consumer complaints to proper legal avenues. The most common concern of legislators was how to protect the public when no licensure, registration or certification was required. A designated government client contact phone would help refer consumers to the already existing legal avenues available. The Department of Health agreed to be such a referral office. And finally the fifth set of drafts came in early 1999 and included all of our preferred language which we were courageously ready to defend at all costs.

The bill was entitled the Complementary and Alternative health Care Freedom of Access Act and was introduced February 8, 1999. This stage was like eighth grade graduation! Our bill was considered by some to be very raw. We, on the other hand, perceived it as a fine pearl, “all growd up” – typical freshmen! Some legislators saw the bill as very progressive, allowing the maximum number of consumer options and providing a referral service to teach consumers about their existing legal recourse when they had a concern. Other legislators opposed the bill, wanting a licensure model to mandate particular types of education and give exclusive title to various groups. Our task became one of educating legislators about the wide variety of healing trades and arts, about the lack of number of complaints against natural health practitioner and the potential arbitrariness of legal actions taken against them, and about the 1998 Department of Health Study on Complementary Medicine which did not recommend licensure but rather recommended a new approach addressing the ethical relationship the consumer has with a practitioner.

AMENDMENTS became the name of the game! It was a full-time job keeping up with them. Our first shocking experience was when that portion of our bill that allowed licensed practitioners to practice alternatives was taken out in one fell swoop after a three minute conversation with no testimony. Wow! What a lesson in politics! We decided to continue and work with the unlicensed practitioner portion of the bill. As the bill went forward the most significant opposing amendment came from the House of Representatives presented in the Civil Law Committee by Representative Carruthers. This amendment required us to abandon our original language and adopt language similar to an already existing Minnesota Statute for unlicensed mental health care practitioners. It required us to shift the jurisdiction of the natural health community from the Board of Medical Practice to the Department of Health. It also required the government to set up a new office for enforcement of practitioner ethical violations and mandated distribution of Client Bill of Rights, which in turn required us to ask the legislature for money. But it did not jeopardize our freedom goals to assure consumer access to as many healing modalities as possible.

We carefully considered our options and finally decided to introduce a reformed version of the amendment. This enabled our bill to pass out of the Civil Law Committee on February 26, 2000, after being heard in a precedent number of hearings over a course of almost a year by a strong advocate and remarkable Committee Chairman, Representative Steve Smith. The ramifications of this decision were politically very huge. Not only were our former supporters on board but many of those who had been opponents now were excited about the bill. Consumer calls, letters and e-mails were flooding the capitol, and we had a bill that was gaining momentum.

In the Senate the bill moved with less resistance after the Department of Health model language was adopted. The most significant amendment in the Senate came when negotiations took place with a number of licensure Boards. The end result was that the new office in the Department of Health would not have jurisdiction over a person licensed under the Board of Medical Practice, Board of Chiropractic, Board of Dentistry, and Board of Podiatric Medicine. Other licensed professionals could practice as “unlicensed complementary and alternative health care practitioners” under the Department of Health as long as they were not holding themselves out as licensed professionals while practicing alternatives. All licensed individuals who would hold themselves out as licensed practitioners would continue to be under their licensing Boards when practicing complementary and alternative practices.

It was at this point in the process that the Board of Medical Practice voted not to oppose our legislation. These were extremely important amendments and contributed to the mutual respect of all participating interest groups. The last big hurdle for amendments was the financing of the Health Department office for the taking of and following up on ethical complaints. All along the way there had been many heroes helping us. This included getting the funding for this office. The hard-working authors of this bill, Representative Lynda Boudreau and Senator Twyla Ring, were fearless under the attacks of our opponents! Towards the final days, Senator Sheila Kiscaden took the language of our bill and amended it onto her health occupations bill. This was done so that our bill would not get stuck in the huge omnibus bill where it could have gotten stalemated. This allowed it to continue to move ahead through the process. Senator Kiscaden has our deepest gratitude.

The bill sailed through the last week while we held our breaths. MNHLRP, the Senate, and the House had worked together to find common ground, and we had found it. The bill even got the signature of the Governor! Hurray! And now, like the teenager graduating and meeting the world head on, we expect a time of transition for our “freedom statute.” We plan to participate in this transition, and continue vigorously advocating for natural health care freedom.