Implications of prescription rights for the chiropractic profession

P. Emary, T. Houweling, M. Wangler, et al
April 10, 2017
Written by P. Emary, T. Houweling, M. Wangler, et al
This article was selected by the editorial team of the Chiropractic & Manual Therapies journal as the best paper for the third quarter of 2016. The full commentary of this paper has been published and can be freely accessed online.

In a number of jurisdictions, chiropractors have developed advanced standards of practice, including the ability to order advanced diagnostic imaging as well as prescription rights for a limited formulary of medications. Recent reports indicate that a growing number of chiropractors in various other jurisdictions are also interested in expanding their scopes of practice to include such limited formulary access.

Chiropractors in Switzerland have had limited prescriptive authority since 1995, and surveys indicate that these privileges are regarded by Swiss chiropractors as a distinct advantage for both the profession and patients in that country. Despite the advances in some jurisdictions, the right to prescribe medications continues to be a contentious issue for many in the chiropractic profession.

The objective of this commentary was to examine the arguments for and against limited medication prescription rights for chiropractors, and to discuss the implications of implementing such privileges for the profession.

If limited to a musculoskeletal scope, medication prescription rights have the potential to change the present role of chiropractors within the health-care system by paving the way for practitioners to become comprehensive specialists in the conservative management of spine/musculoskeletal disorders. This is in keeping with a current move within the profession toward "rebranding" itself to align with a musculoskeletal scope of practice and a more comprehensive approach to patient care. Limited prescribing rights for chiropractors could also benefit patients and the health-care system by providing more streamlined, cost-effective care plus reduced waiting times for patients. Moreover, with such privileges chiropractors could have a positive influence on public health.

However, if the chiropractic profession wishes to expand its scope of practice to include limited prescriptive authority, necessary changes to chiropractic education and legislation must be addressed. For this, the profession could look to Switzerland where an excellent educational and legislative model for chiropractic has been developed.

Chiropractors who wish to pursue limited prescriptive authority should lobby their professional associations and regulatory bodies to engage in dialogue with like-minded politicians and third-party payers to highlight and promote the benefits of making such changes to the existing health-care system. Prior to this, discussions should take place within the chiropractic profession in order to present a uniform position on the part of the various memberships with respect to changing the profession's scope of practice.

If such a move is to occur, it would be important that professional governing bodies, associations and respective memberships provide a united approach, perhaps initially validated after member consultation in the form of national surveys.

-----
Peter Emary, DC, MSc ; Taco Houweling, DC, PhD; Martin Wangler, DC, MME; Stephen Burnie, DC, MSc; Katherine Hood, DC; Mark Erwin, DC, PhD

Comments  

 
0 #5 Peter Emary 2017-04-13 18:21
Roger is right though in that there will likely never be complete consensus on this topic within our profession, not currently anyways. Regardless, we looked at differences in philosophical orientation among our chiropractic respondents from Ontario. In our study, focused scope (or "straight") chiropractors made up only 13% of all respondents - and our sample was representative of all practising chiropractors in Ontario. The large majority of all other respondents in the province were in favour of limited (i.e. MSK) prescription rights.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Peter Emary 2017-04-11 20:18
Regarding unity on this issue, there is evidence to suggest that there is potential for majority consensus among Canadian chiropractors on limited prescribing rights for the profession. For instance, in our survey of Ontario chiropractors over two-thirds of respondents were in favour of MSK prescription rights. In a recent survey nearly two-thirds of chiropractors in Alberta were also in support of expanding their scope of practice to include limited medication prescription. We wish to take these results to all Canadian provinces in order to complete a nationwide survey. If the same findings are confirmed elsewhere, it would argue for a national campaign to reform the chiropractic scope of practice acts across the country.
Quote
 
 
+1 #3 Roger Berton 2017-04-10 22:15
It is definitely over due!
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Roger Berton 2017-04-10 22:14
It is definitely time to say the least. Unfortunately, I don't have time write the 4 pages needed to back this up. But the comical portion of this article is where is states,"
If such a move is to occur, it would be important ... respective memberships provide a united approach."
We all know that this can't happen. I don't mind how my friends currently do and would like to run their clinics in the future. However, it is unfortunate that the past has shown that there is a whole lot of members of our profession that would prefer to keep us all in the stone age while every other profession is trying to increase their scope.
Quote
 
 
+1 #1 Carlan Stants 2017-04-10 13:26
In my opinion, the ability of chiropractors to have limited prescribing rights should be thought of as nothing more than adding more tools in our tool box to address MSK conditions. It will allow the profession to remain competitive in the ever evolving field of health care. Failure to do so will only succeed in marginalizing chiropractic as other professions evolve. Purists may argue that it is not chiropractic but I would argue that SMT is only one tool in our tool box. If one can readily prescribed such biological agents as vitamins and minerals why not have limited access to other pharmacological agents that will help chiropractors provide more effective care.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Subscription Centre

 
New Subscription
 
Already a Subscriber
 
Customer Service
 
View Digital Magazine Renew

Most Popular