Regulatory Announcements

April 10, 2023

The Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities (FNMRA) opposes AB 765 (Wood).

The FMNRA’s mission is to protect the public by connecting regulatory authorities and promoting standards of excellence in the regulation of naturopathic medicine.

AB 765 fails to protect the health and safety of Californians and should be abandoned or amended.  

The FNMRA appreciates this opportunity to illustrate how AB 765 is contrary to the purpose of protecting the public in California: 

 

·       AB 765 WILL LEAD TO DELAYS in Healthcare Delivery

• ·       AB 765 WILL CAUSE CONFUSION for Patients About Qualified Healthcare Providers

·       AB 765 UNDERMINES The Established Standards of Regulation in The United States

·       AB 765 Increases Regulatory Burden and Associated Costs

AB 765 WILL LEAD TO DELAYS in Healthcare Delivery

If adopted, the California Legislature is at risk of, and potentially culpable for, harming the state’s underserved areas and populations by inhibiting the timely delivery of meaningful and effective primary care medicine or specialty referral. 

Making it a crime to call yourself a doctor when you are indeed licensed, educated, and trained to provide diagnosis and treatment to a patient will confuse the public and lead to delays in healthcare delivery.

Delays in healthcare delivery are well-known to increase medical burden and lead to a deterioration in outcomes by allowing pathology to progress unchecked - as the COVID-19 pandemic delays demonstrated.

AB 765 WILL LEAD TO DELAYS in Healthcare Delivery (cont.)

Areas with low income, high infant mortality, and older populations must have access to qualified primary care providers. This ensures that those who are most in need are provided with meaningful, effective, and timely healthcare. If naturopathic doctors (NDs) are not properly allowed to call themselves “doctors” the public will be confused and delay receiving healthcare from a qualified provider. The COVID-19 pandemic was well known to cause delays in healthcare delivery leading to poor outcomes. [1]

AB 765 will CAUSE CONFUSION for Patients about Qualified Healthcare Providers

Qualified NDs are already licensed primary care doctors in California. In all states that license naturopathic doctors, NDs use the title “doctor” or “physician” to describe their education and status to their patients. In a clinical setting, patients understand the title “doctor” is meant for providers that diagnose and treat disease.

Many patients have their healthcare delivered by a team of providers – some doctors, some physicians, and some non-physicians. This team-oriented delivery of medicine is common.

Clear advertising and informed consent rules already exist to educate the patient on the exact title and education of all health care providers on the patient’s team.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) urges regulators to allow for innovation and inclusiveness of all healthcare practitioner types in meeting patient needs.[2]^,[3],[4] And the IOM encourages the use of interdisciplinary teams to optimize patient care.^3,4,5

Further, the Pew Health Commission Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation has called for jurisdictions to allow all qualified professionals to provide services to the full extent of their current knowledge, training, experience, and skills.^3,[5]

• ·       The title “doctor” provides consumer protection against lay naturopaths in California

Naturopathic regulatory authorities consistently report to the FNMRA that there are many more consumer complaints against lay naturopaths than licensed naturopathic doctors. It is difficult to track this number, but we have a few examples. In 2013 in California, 6 actions were taken against licensed NDs and 51 were taken against lay naturopaths. In the past ten years in Utah, there has been one disciplinary action taken against a licensed ND and an average of one action taken per year against lay naturopaths. Lay naturopaths, because of their lack of training, can recommend dangerous or ineffectual treatments, leading to physical harm or death. AB 765 will cause consumers to be unable to differentiate between licensed NDs and lay naturopaths.

The use of “naturopathic doctor” for licensed NDs protects the public, especially in California.

·       Formal Education & Training Supports the Title of “Doctor” for NDs

The use of the title “doctor” is accurate considering the education, clinical training, and regulation of NDs in California and the US.²

NDs who have graduated from a Council on Naturopathic Medical Education-accredited (CNME) doctoral training program in naturopathic medicine have been trained to be primary care doctors. The CNME provides that:

The Council’s in-depth accreditation process promotes high-quality naturopathic education and training, and safe and effective practice. Our educational standards provide the basis for licensing/regulating naturopathic doctors in the U.S. and Canada. CNME is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit doctoral programs in naturopathic medicine.

CNME does not accredit online or distance education programs.[6]

NDs are required to pass competency-based national naturopathic licensing examinations to demonstrate that they are competent to safely and effectively use naturopathic medicine to diagnose and treat disease while optimizing overall health. The formal education and clinical training prepare NDs to be independent prescribers and clinical primary care doctors, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

·       NDs Have Specialty Titles Earned Through Board Certification

The naturopathic medical profession has several specialty organizations that provide board certification. For example, the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology, which certifies called Fellow to the American Board of Naturopathic Oncologist (FABNO) and the American Board of Naturopathic Pediatrics, which certifies Fellow to the American Board of Naturopathic Pediatrics (FABNP). These specialty designations are already regulated by California regulators, but AB 765 would prevent those who have specialty designations from their rightful use of titles.

AB 765 UNDERMINES the Established Standards of Regulation in The United States

·       AB 765 undermines established licensing and regulatory standards

All primary care providers (NDs, MDs, DOs, PAs, RNs, DCs, etc.) in the US must go through, at minimum, a three-step process to acquire a license: 

1)    Graduation from a US Department of Education (ED) accredited academic institution 

2)    Passage of multiple licensing examinations 

3)    Verification of the first two steps by a state licensing authority, which then grants the licensee the right to practice and oversees that practice 

It is only through the completion of all three steps that proof to practice safely on the public is demonstrated. 

The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) advises that while the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution authorizes its jurisdictions to establish laws and regulations protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens, each jurisdiction must bear in mind the implications of potential practice act changes in the greater national landscape.[7] Thus, it is the responsibility of the individual jurisdictions to regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine within the established national framework. 

AB 765 interferes with the proper use of “doctor” for NDs in California, when that title is commonly used in statutes nationwide.

AB 765 Increases Regulatory Burden and Associated Costs 

·       Cost-effective regulatory mechanisms already exist 

California has an established regulatory structure that allows for consumer protection and accountability of safe and effective licensed NDs. The current regulation also protects consumers against lay practitioners. By protecting California’s duly licensed NDs through enforcing the current regulation the public is educated on the difference between qualified naturopathic doctors and lay naturopaths. 

In Conclusion: 

·       AB 765 WILL LEAD TO DELAYS in Healthcare Delivery

• ·       AB 765 WILL CAUSE CONFUSION for Patients About Qualified Healthcare Providers

·       AB 765 UNDERMINES The Established Standards of Regulation in The United States for safe and smart healthcare regulation. 

·       AB 765 Increases Regulatory Burden and Associated Costs 

We know that as a member of the California legislature, you are a champion of public safety. Your support of smart naturopathic medical regulation will effectively increase the number of safe primary care providers in California by improving access to and efficient delivery of healthcare. 

We thank you for the opportunity to share our comments and hope this information, and any future dialogue between the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities and the Members of the California Legislature, will lead to the refinement of regulations that promote the safe practice of naturopathic medicine. 

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a4.htm

[2] https://www.fsmb.org/siteassets/advocacy/policies/assessing-scope-of-practice-in-health-care-delivery.pdf

[3] Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21 st Century, The Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2001.

[4] Health Professions Education: A Bridge to Quality, The Institute of Medicine, Committee on Health Professions Education Summit, National Academies Press, 2003.

[5] Reforming Health Care Workforce Regulation: Policy Considerations for the 21 st Century, Report of the Pew Health Professions Commission’s Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation, December 1995, ix.

[6] https://cnme.org/

[7] https://www.fsmb.org/siteassets/education/pdf/best-module-text-intro-to-medical-regulation.pdf

March 22, 2023

RE: Support of HB 115

Dear Honorable Representative Mike Prax, Chair, and Members of House Health and Social Services Committee,

The Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities (FNMRA) supports regulation of naturopathic medicine in Alaska. Regulation is integral to the safe practice of naturopathic medicine and protection of the public.

The FMNRA’s mission is to protect the public by connecting regulatory authorities and promoting standards of excellence in the regulation of naturopathic medicine. The Federation supports new and existing regulatory organizations in fulfilling their statutory obligations to regulate the profession in the interest of public protection. The FNMRA envisions a coordinated regulatory system for naturopathic medicine throughout the United States.

The FNMRA appreciates this opportunity to illustrate a verifiable need for naturopathic doctors (NDs) in Alaska. Smart regulation of the naturopathic profession permits qualified NDs to practice as trained while ensuring public safety, empowering the citizens of Alaska to pursue their choice of qualified healthcare provider, and all the associated benefits.

Verifiable Need for NDs to practice as Primary Care Providers in Alaska

·       Alaska faces a statewide shortfall in primary care providers[1]

Alaska will need to add up to 237 primary care providers in the next decade, according to projected estimates.[2] By licensing NDs in Alaska to practice as trained, the state would increase its primary care provider workforce with safe, effective, and well-trained practitioners.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) urges regulators to allow for innovation and inclusiveness of all healthcare practitioner types in meeting patient needs.[3]^,[4],[5] And the IOM encourages the use of interdisciplinary teams to optimize patient care.^3,4,5

Further, the Pew Health Commission Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation has called for jurisdictions to allow all qualified professionals to provide services to the full extent of their current knowledge, training, experience, and skills.^3,[6]

 

Licensed NDs Are Safe Primary Care Providers

 

·       Licensed NDs have fewer disciplinary actions than MDs/DOs

NDs have been safely practicing as primary care providers in other jurisdictions for decades, and for approximately a century in several more. Safe practice by NDs can be objectively demonstrated by the fact that NDs have fewer disciplinary actions taken against them compared to MDs and DOs (see addendum A).

 

·       Minimal disciplinary actions occur even when NDs have broad prescribing rights

Alaska would benefit from the regulation of NDs to include broad prescribing rights because it would effectively improve access to qualified primary care providers. An important aspect of primary care is the ability to prescribe drugs at the time of care so that the patient does not need to delay treatment by being forced to seek care with a second provider. Primary care providers need broad prescribing authority to provide timely and effective treatment, improve access to care, and ensure patient safety. FNMRA interprets “broad prescribing rights” to mean access to all major categories of prescription drugs required for primary care.

 

NDs have proven themselves to be safe prescribers. Through 2021, 11 out of 25 regulated jurisdictions allow NDs broad prescriptive authority. Only three of these jurisdictions have taken disciplinary action against NDs for prescribing decisions. And, the majority of these actions involved opioid management, which is a challenging area for all licensed primary care providers.

 

Of the six jurisdictions that allow NDs broad prescriptive authority including opioids, only two require oversight by an MD or DO: California and Vermont. Vermont requires oversight for one year or the first 100 prescriptions (or other qualified experience) after passing the NPLEX Part II – Elective Pharmacology Examination. Conversely, California currently requires ongoing prescriptive oversight, creating an unnecessary burden on MDs, DOs, and NDs. Therefore, the California regulator is currently seeking to remove this requirement because it interferes with the ability of a qualified ND to practice as trained and provide effective primary care.

 Disciplinary Actions Related to Naturopathic Doctor Prescribing

 

All categories of disciplinary actions can be seen in Addendum B.

Formal Education, Training, and Accreditation Supports Broad Prescribing Rights for NDs

 

·       Formal Education & Training Supports Independent Prescribing Rights for NDs

NDs who have graduated from a Council on Naturopathic Medical Education-accredited (CNME) doctoral training program in naturopathic medicine have been trained to be primary care providers. The CNME provides that:

 

The Council’s in-depth accreditation process promotes high-quality naturopathic education and training, and safe and effective practice. Our educational standards provide the basis for licensing/regulating naturopathic doctors in the U.S. and Canada. CNME is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit doctoral programs in naturopathic medicine.

 

CNME does not accredit online or distance education programs.[7]

 

NDs are required to pass competency-based national naturopathic licensing examinations to demonstrate that they are competent to safely and effectively use naturopathic medicine to diagnose and treat disease while optimizing overall health. The formal education and clinical training prepare NDs to be independent prescribers, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

 

Proposed Regulatory Mechanism to Support Independent Prescribing Rights for NDs

 

·       Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX) Part II - Elective Pharmacology Examination can be adopted to establish prescribing competency

The NPLEX has developed four Part II – Clinical Elective Examinations (Acupuncture, Minor Surgery, Pharmacology, Parenteral Medicine).[8]The Elective Pharmacology Examination is composed of 75 stand-alone items. This exam has been adopted by several jurisdictions to establish prescribing competency, allowing qualified NDs to practice as trained with broad and independent prescribing rights.

 

 

Accountability & Liability Issues Related to Regulation

 

• ·       Regulation provides consumer protection and accountability

For the purpose of public protection, Naturopathic doctors have been regulated for decades in many states and for approximately a century in several more. This protection is provided in part by the use of proper title (Naturopathic Doctor (ND), or Naturopathic Medical Doctor (NMD), by excluding unqualified persons from practicing naturopathic medicine, and by creating a structure through which the public can report complaints where both licensees and lay practitioners can be investigated.

Naturopathic regulatory authorities consistently report to the FNMRA that there are many more consumer complaints against lay naturopaths than licensed naturopathic doctors. It is difficultto track this number, but we have a few examples. In 2013 in California, 6 actions were taken against licensed NDs and 51 were taken against lay naturopaths. More recently, California has reported that approximately 75% of investigations are related to lay naturopaths. In the past ten years in Utah, there has been one disciplinary action taken against a licensed ND and an average of one action taken per year against lay naturopaths. Lay naturopaths, because of their lack of training, can recommend dangerous or ineffectual treatments and prevent consumers from accessing appropriate care, leading to physical harm or death.

In Conclusion:

Allowing NDs to practice as trained will ensure that Alaska increases it number of primary care providers. NDs have been safely practicing as primary care providers with broad prescribing rights in other states for decades, and for approximately a century in several more.

As a member of this committee, we know you are a champion of public safety. Your support of naturopathic medical regulation will effectively increase the number of safe primary care prescribers by improving access and efficient delivery of healthcare.

We thank you for the opportunity to share our comments and hope this information, and any future dialogue between the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities and the Members of the Alaska House Health and Social Services Committee, will lead to smart regulations that promote the safe practice of naturopathic medicine.

[1] https://data.hrsa.gov/topics/health-workforce/shortage-areas

[2] Petterson, Stephen M; Cai, Angela; Moore, Miranda; Bazemore, Andrew. State-level projections of primary care workforce, 2010-2030. September 2013, Robert Graham Center, Washington, D.C. https://www.graham-center.org/content/dam/rgc/documents/maps-data-tools/state-collections/workforce-projections/Alaska.pdf

[3] https://www.fsmb.org/siteassets/advocacy/policies/assessing-scope-of-practice-in-health-care-delivery.pdf

[4] Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21 st Century, The Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2001.

[5] Health Professions Education: A Bridge to Quality, The Institute of Medicine, Committee on Health Professions Education Summit, National Academies Press, 2003.

[6] Reforming Health Care Workforce Regulation: Policy Considerations for the 21 st Century, Report of the Pew Health Professions Commission’s Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation, December 1995, ix.

[7] https://cnme.org/

[8] https://www.nabne.org/exam-overview/

 RE: Support for Licensure of Naturopathic Doctors in Michigan SB 990

Dear Honorable Senator Vander Wall, Chair, and Members of the Committee on Health Policy and Human Services,

The Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities (FNMRA) supports regulation of naturopathic medicine in Michigan. Regulation is integral to the safe practice of naturopathic medicine and protection of the public.

The FMNRA’s mission is to protect the public by connecting regulatory authorities and promoting standards of excellence in the regulation of naturopathic medicine. The Federation supports new and existing regulatory organizations in fulfilling their statutory obligations to regulate the profession in the interest of public protection. The FNMRA envisions a coordinated regulatory system for naturopathic medicine throughout the United States.

The FNMRA appreciates this opportunity to illustrate a verifiable need for naturopathic doctors (NDs) in Michigan. Smart regulation of the naturopathic profession permits qualified NDs to practice as trained while ensuring public safety, empowering the citizens of Michigan to pursue their choice of qualified healthcare provider, and all the associated benefits.

Verifiable Need for Regulation of NDs in Michigan

·       Michigan faces a statewide shortfall in primary care providers[1]

Michigan will need an additional 832 primary care providers in the next decade, according to projected estimates.[2] By licensing NDs in Michigan to practice as trained, the state would increase its primary care provider workforce with safe, effective, and well-trained practitioners.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) urges regulators to allow for innovation and inclusiveness of all healthcare practitioner types in meeting patient needs.[3]^,[4],[5] And the IOM encourages the use of interdisciplinary teams to optimize patient care.^3,4,5

Further, the Pew Health Commission Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation has called for jurisdictions to allow all qualified professionals to provide services to the full extent of their current knowledge, training, experience, and skills.^3,[6]

Licensed NDs Are Safe Primary Care Providers

·       Licensed NDs have fewer disciplinary actions than MDs/DOs

NDs have been safely practicing as primary care providers in other jurisdictions for decades, and for approximately a century in several more. Safe practice by NDs can be objectively demonstrated by the fact that NDs have fewer disciplinary actions taken against them compared to MDs and DOs (see addendum A).

·       Minimal disciplinary actions occur even when NDs have broad prescribing rights

Michigan would benefit from the regulation of NDs to include broad prescribing rights because it would effectively improve access to qualified primary care providers. An important aspect of primary care is the ability to prescribe drugs at the time of care so that the patient does not need to delay treatment by being forced to seek care with a second provider. Primary care providers need broad prescribing authority to provide timely and effective treatment, improve access to care, and ensure patient safety. FNMRA interprets “broad prescribing rights” to mean access to all major categories of prescription drugs required for primary care.

NDs have proven themselves to be safe prescribers. Through 2021, 11 out of 25 regulated jurisdictions allow NDs broad prescriptive authority. Only three of these jurisdictions have taken disciplinary action against NDs for prescribing decisions. And, the majority of these actions involved opioid management, which is a challenging area for all licensed primary care providers.

Of the six jurisdictions that allow NDs broad prescriptive authority including opioids, only two require oversight by an MD or DO: California and Vermont. Vermont requires oversight for one year or the first 100 prescriptions (or other qualified experience) after passing the NPLEX Part II – Elective Pharmacology Examination. Conversely, California currently requires ongoing prescriptive oversight, creating an unnecessary burden on MDs, DOs, and NDs. Therefore, the California regulator is currently seeking to remove this requirement because it interferes with the ability of a qualified ND to practice as trained and provide effective primary care.

Disciplinary Actions Related to Naturopathic Doctor Prescribing

All categories of disciplinary actions can be seen in Addendum B.

Formal Education, Training, and Accreditation Supports Broad Prescribing Rights for NDs

·       Formal Education & Training Supports Independent Prescribing Rights for NDs

NDs who have graduated from a Council on Naturopathic Medical Education-accredited (CNME) doctoral training program in naturopathic medicine have been trained to be primary care providers. The CNME provides that:

The Council’s in-depth accreditation process promotes high-quality naturopathic education and training, and safe and effective practice. Our educational standards provide the basis for licensing/regulating naturopathic doctors in the U.S. and Canada. CNME is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit doctoral programs in naturopathic medicine.

CNME does not accredit online or distance education programs.[7]

NDs are required to pass competency-based national naturopathic licensing examinations to demonstrate that they are competent to safely and effectively use naturopathic medicine to diagnose and treat disease while optimizing overall health. The formal education and clinical training prepare NDs to be independent prescribers, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

 

Proposed Regulatory Mechanism to Support Independent Prescribing Rights for NDs

 

·       Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX) Part II - Elective Pharmacology Examination can be adopted to establish prescribing competency

The NPLEX has developed four Part II – Clinical Elective Examinations (Acupuncture, Minor Surgery, Pharmacology, Parenteral Medicine).[8]The Elective Pharmacology Examination is composed of 75 stand-alone items. This exam has been adopted by several jurisdictions to establish prescribing competency, allowing qualified NDs to practice as trained with broad and independent prescribing rights.

 

Accountability & Liability Issues Related to Regulation

• ·       Regulation provides consumer protection and accountability

For the purpose of public protection, Naturopathic doctors have been regulated for decades in many states and for approximately a century in several more. This protection is provided in part by the use of proper title (Naturopathic Doctor (ND), or Naturopathic Medical Doctor (NMD), by excluding unqualified persons from practicing naturopathic medicine, and by creating a structure through which the public can report complaints where both licensees and lay practitioners can be investigated.

Naturopathic regulatory authorities consistently report to the FNMRA that there are many more consumer complaints against lay naturopaths than licensed naturopathic doctors. It is difficultto track this number, but we have a few examples. In 2013 in California, 6 actions were taken against licensed NDs and 51 were taken against lay naturopaths. More recently, California has reported that approximately 75% of investigations are related to lay naturopaths. In the past ten years in Utah, there has been one disciplinary action taken against a licensed ND and an average of one action taken per year against lay naturopaths. Lay naturopaths, because of their lack of training, can recommend dangerous or ineffectual treatments and prevent consumers from accessing appropriate care, leading to physical harm or death.

In Conclusion:

Licensure will ensure that naturopathic doctors are competent by establishing educational and practice standards. Furthermore, creating a naturopathic medicine regulatory structure in Michigan will allow enforcement of the state’s rules by monitoring licensee activity and implementing disciplinary actions.

As a member of this committee, we know you are a champion of public safety. Your support of naturopathic medical regulation will effectively increase the number of safe primary care prescribers by improving access and efficient delivery of healthcare.

We thank you for the opportunity to share our comments and hope this information, and any future dialogue between the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities and the Members of the Michigan Senate Committee on Health Policy and Human Services, will lead to smart regulations that promote the safe practice of naturopathic medicine.

Dear Members of the Virginia Board of Health Professions Regulatory Research Committee,

The FNMRA appreciates this opportunity to illustrate the need for licensure of qualified naturopathic doctors (NDs) in Virginia. NDs who have graduated from a CNME-accredited naturopathic medicine program have been trained to be primary care providers. When they have passed competency-based national naturopathic licensing examinations, they have demonstrated that they are competent to safely and effectively use naturopathic medicine to treat disease and optimize health. continue reading here

The AANP's released Fact Sheet on Regulatory Agency Warning Letters on June 5, 2020. It replaces/supercedes the AANP's last guidelines.

NABNE is moving forward on the assumption that it will be possible to administer the NPLEX Examinations as planned on August 4-7, 2020, and then release scores to the regulatory authorities in the typical time frame, which is late September 2020.

NABNE clarified that as circumstances continue to change rapidly, the exam administration might need to be postponed in order to comply with public-safety requirements. NABNE will continue to monitor developments of the COVID-19 crisis and will update the website regarding the August 2020 NPLEX exam administration if changes must be made. By July 15, 2020, NABNE will determine if the August 2020 test administration will proceed as scheduled at all test sites.

More information can be found at: https://www.nabne.org/the-nplex-covid-19/

The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Urges Authorities to Include and Use
Licensed Naturopathic Doctors in Plans to Combat the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic.

The Association calls for increased access to care and telemedicine as a way to promote health and safety of those at the highest risk.

The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), representing 8,000 licensed
naturopathic doctors (NDs) in the United States, encourages all government officials
coordinating the national response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) to
to utilize all licensed healthcare professionals in this health emergency, including
NDs. Licensed NDs work collaboratively across all forms of medicine, and in regulated
states are already integrated into health systems. Serving in primary and specialty care,
NDs are ready, willing, and able to support other medical professionals in changing the
trajectory of this public health crisis.

Read the entire letter here.

It has come to the attention of the FNMRA that some naturopathic doctors have been inappropriately advertising treatments for the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infection. Inappropriate advertising is detrimental to the health of the public at this time of crisis.

On June 5, 2020 the AANP released new guidelines that replace/supercede any previous guidance.

Click here to see full language guidelines

RE: Expand Access to Vital Telehealth Services in COVID-19 Supplemental Appropriation

The mission of the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities (FMNRA) is to protect the public by facilitating communication between naturopathic regulatory authorities, and by promoting standards of excellence in the regulation of naturopathic medicine. The members of the FNMRA are the state naturopathic licensing boards and committees.

The FNMRA appreciates the recent reforms that Medicare has already made for telehealth services (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act), but we believe that additional reforms are still needed. The country’s naturopathic doctors (NDs) are still limited by the current telehealth reforms. To meet the demands of Americans during this COVID-19 pandemic, the Federation is asking that additional changes be made to include NDs in the telehealth services supplemental appropriation. This change will enable NDs (who are primary care providers) to better serve Americans during this crisis.

We ask for your support to expand access to vital telehealth services in the COVID-19
supplemental appropriation, and we urge you to include a provision that would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to waive existing Medicare restrictions on telehealth visits during a public health emergency.

Read the entire letter here.

RE: Potential Aid for Naturopathic Doctors and Organizations Impacted by Coronavirus (COVID-19)

The mission of the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities (FNMRA) is to protect the public by connecting regulatory authorities and promoting standards of excellence in the regulation of naturopathic medicine.

We are aware that the Trump Administration and Congress are considering measures to support cash-flow assistance amid the COVID-19 outbreak, and we urge that licensed naturopathic doctors and their tax-exempt entities (clinics, academic institutions and other organizations) be included in any temporary or other aid designed to stem the economic fallout resulting from COVID-19.

Inclusion in the bill wording will provide support for naturopathic doctors (NDs) who are primary care providers that have an important role in helping American citizens cope with the ongoing pandemic and its aftermath. Many naturopathic doctors are small-business owners or work as independent contractors. Most are being required to close down their businesses as they comply with the need for social distancing to stem the spread of the virus.

Read the entire letter here.