Newsletters > Winter 1997 > MNHC Testifies at the Legislature : Should Natural Health Be Regulated?, by Nancy Hone

MNHC testified at the joint subcommittees in the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives on occupational licensure on November 17 and December 17 respectively. The Senate committee, chaired by Senator Weiner and Senator Kiscaden, also heard testimony from the Chiropractic, Medical Nursing and Social Work Boards, as well as from the policy and Planning Coordinator of the Boards as a whole. Similar presentations are being heard by the House committee which is chaired by Representative Linda Wejcman.

The senators asked the licensing boards to comment on:

a) the strengths and weaknesses of the Minnesota current regulatory system,

b) emerging issues that may require board or legislative action and

c) how the legislative decision-making process for occupational regulation can be improved.

The chairs of the senate committee have repeatedly asked for testimony from the public regarding the effect of occupational regulation on the private sector and consumers. MNHC, being a group of consumers and natural health and natural health practitioners, asked to give their input. We were the only group that gave testimony in the Senate on some of the issues that consumers of natural health are interested in.

Jerri Johnson, Homeopath, Cathy Coult, consumer and Marillyn Bever, consumer and the President of MNHC, represented the Minnesota Natural Health Coalition at the subcommittee meetings. Cathy Coult introduced the speakers and our coalition. Ms. Johnson stated our mission which is to ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS HAVE FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO THE HEALTH CARE OF THEIR CHOICE. Consumers do not have full access to natural health care and we must step carefully into the regulatory mode, if at all, as it could further limit the consumers' access to these form of care. Access to practice without fear of sanctions by the medical community and to have insurance coverage available for their services.

Ms. Johnson went on to share our research that indicates that licensure, by definition, means exclusivity. Only those who meet specific criteria are "licensed" to provide services. The vast majority of requests for occupational licensure, we have learned, come NOT from the public, but from special interest groups who provide the services.

Some providers and consumers support licensure for two reasons: insurance coverage and the legal protection it may provide the practitioners from the medical statute that states they are practicing medicine without a license (see statute on page 1). The coalition is sympathetic with those concerns, but we hold that there are solutions that are more beneficial to Minnesotans than licensure and governmental regulation. The MNHC is developing legislative proposals that would provide these solutions to the benefit of both providers and consumers. The MNHC opposes licensure for natural health care providers for essentially three reasons: 1) it limits accessibility to natural health care; 2) it increases the cost to the consumer; 3) it supports inflexibility and inhibits innovation.

Marillyn Beyer answered Senator Kiscaden's question of how, then, do we protect the public. After showing that research indicates that regulation does not necessarily insure consumer protection, she said that the public is not fully protected until they know that ALL healing options are available and that their providers can practice legally without threat from the medical board for practicing medicine without a license. THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR INFORMATION AND INSURANCE COVERAGE AND NOT REGULATION.

Natural health has been around for centuries with no regulation due to its harmless and safe nature of providing an different paradigm of thought than what environment in which the body can heal itself.

Natural health is a completely different paradigm of thought than what is considered current standard medical practice so how to approach it legally will require some innovative and creative ideas. Maybe the question that should be asked is why is there such a sudden eagerness to regulate it considering its ancient history of practice by peoples of the world.

The people, she said, want to manage their own health care more and more and take responsibility for it. The more information they have and the freer the natural health community is to offer this information, the better able the consumer is to make the choices right for them. Perhaps information and the freedom to access the health care of their choice is their protection and not regulation.

Ms. Beyer reflected the MNHC when she said that our society cannot afford an inflexible system that cannot respond to new needs and new data. In Minnesota we must develop a free environment that provides the best health choices in the nation. We must make our state the flagship in the changing health care system, leading our country into the 21st century.