The Alaska Landmine recently published an opinion piece titled “Bills giving more power to naturopaths are a prescription for quackery” that conflates modern licensed naturopathic medicine with fringe wellness practices and makes several inaccurate or misleading claims about Naturopathic Doctors (ND), naturopathic medical education, regulation, and clinical practice.

Let’s use the author’s analogy of someone asking about a newly constructed bridge to actually make the analogy more accurate. Imagine you are about to drive your family across the author’s imaginary newly completed bridge. You ask the construction worker whether there was a project manager overseeing the entire build. Someone coordinating the engineering systems, stress loads, environmental conditions, maintenance planning, safety redundancies, and long-term structural integrity. “Oh no,” the worker replies. “The engineers were excellent at fixing visible cracks and isolated problems, but nobody was responsible for evaluating how the whole system functioned together.” 

This analogy better reflects the growing divide in modern healthcare than the author perhaps realizes. Licensed NDs are not “alternative engineers” relying on mystical forces; they are medically educated healthcare professionals trained to evaluate the broader systems influencing human health — prevention, lifestyle, metabolic function, chronic disease drivers, and whole-person care — alongside modern diagnostics and evidence-informed medicine.

The article also makes a point to characterize licensed NDs as “anti-scientific,” suggesting they are equivalent to untrained alternative healers, implying that modernizing licensed NDs scope to include prescribing authority would endanger patients. These assertions ignore the statutory and educational framework governing licensed NDs in regulated jurisdictions across the United States and Canada. 

First, licensed NDs are not unregulated wellness practitioners. In the 26 U.S. jurisdictions that license NDs, it is required they graduate from a four-year, in-residence doctoral program accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) or its equivalent. They complete extensive biomedical and clinical training, and pass national board examinations (NPLEX). NDs complete an average of 4,100 didactic hours, including anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, diagnostics, and supervised clinical training. While naturopathic medical education is distinct from MD/DO education, it is inaccurate to portray it as devoid of medical science or equivalent to “witchcraft,” as the article suggests.

Second, the article attempts to discredit the entire profession by focusing heavily on homeopathy. Regardless of differing opinions about homeopathy, it is misleading to imply that homeopathy defines naturopathic medical practice or that all licensed NDs rely upon it as a primary therapeutic modality. Modern naturopathic practice in licensed states commonly includes evidence-informed nutrition, lifestyle medicine, preventive care, laboratory testing, physical medicine, and in many jurisdictions, pharmaceutical prescribing authority.

Many NDs do not utilize homeopathy at all, while others may incorporate it adjunctively, similar to how some conventional physicians incorporate complementary therapies such as acupuncture, meditation, or integrative medicine approaches. The author could not be more incorrect in asserting there is no evidence behind homeopathy. The American Institute of Homeopathy maintains one of the world’s most comprehensive lists of research studies on homeopathy and related topics. The list contains well over 6,000 research studies. Globally, more Medical Doctors prescribe homeopathy than other licensed providers.

Third, the article falsely frames prescribing authority bills as an attempt to “usurp” medicine from physicians. In reality, scope modernization proposals are regulatory frameworks designed to align statutory authority with existing education, examination, and clinical competencies. Prescriptive authority for licensed NDs in regulated jurisdictions is overseen by state boards and continuing education requirements. Numerous states, had the author bothered to research, allow NDs prescribing authority — many for decades without evidence of systemic public safety crises attributable to naturopathic prescribing. Furthermore, licensed naturopathic physicians are educated and trained to work collaboratively with conventional medicine physicians, often working as a health care team.

The article also suggests that NDs promote “pseudo-religious claims,” “magical energy fields,” and “crystal vibrations” as representative of the profession as a whole. This is a classic guilt-by-association argument. The existence of wellness-oriented services or spiritual programming offered by an individual clinic does not define the legal scope, educational standards, or regulatory structure of an entire licensed healthcare profession. By the same logic, the existence of non-standard practices among some chiropractors, nurses, psychologists, or even medical doctors would invalidate those professions entirely.

The article correctly notes that Alaska statute currently restricts naturopaths from using the term “physician.” However, it inaccurately implies that this terminology dispute somehow proves naturopathic doctors are unqualified or deceptive. Scope-of-practice terminology varies significantly by state statute and political history. In many licensed jurisdictions, NDs are legally recognized as naturopathic physicians under state law. The terminology itself does not determine the legitimacy of education, licensure, or regulation

Importantly, the article entirely omits a central public policy reality: Alaska faces significant healthcare access shortages, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Expanding access to licensed healthcare professionals — including NDs practicing within regulated scopes — does not replace MDs or DOs. It supplements an overstretched healthcare workforce and gives patients additional access points for preventive and primary care services.

Finally, the article relies heavily on inflammatory rhetoric rather than objective policy analysis. Terms such as “quackery,” “snake oil,” “woo woo,” and “witchcraft” may generate clicks, but they do not constitute evidence. Public policy debates regarding scope of practice should be grounded in verifiable facts: accredited education, licensure standards, examination requirements, disciplinary oversight, malpractice data, and patient outcomes — not caricatures or stereotypes.

Reasonable people may debate the appropriate scope of naturopathic medicine. But the assertion that licensed NDs are unscientific frauds masquerading as medical professionals is neither accurate nor constructive.

Linn Wheeling is the director of community engagement at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. She brings a wealth of experience in strategy development and organizational performance across technology, healthcare, and professional services.

View the original article here.

Dr. Garrett Fontaine, co-chair of the Maine Medical Association’s legislative committee, said in an interview Wednesday that after listening to testimony by patients and naturopathic doctors, many of his concerns about patient safety were alleviated.

“I was encouraged, and I’m excited to work with them,” Fontaine said.

Maine first approved the licensure of naturopathic doctors in 1996, according to state legislative records. The rules regarding their scope of practice have remained largely unchanged since then, Morrison said.

Before the changes, she said naturopaths couldn’t prescribe simple drugs, such as antibiotics for infections, and medications for blood pressure and asthma. In addition to being able to prescribe some medications, under the changes naturopaths will also be able to offer some IV therapies, including those to infuse patients with nutrients or minerals.

They still won’t be allowed to prescribe some medications, including antidepressants, chemotherapy and other controlled substances.

Morrison, who estimated that there are about 40 practicing naturopathic doctors in Maine, said the new changes should go into effect this summer.

View the original article here.

-A description of the duties and responsibilities of the LVN;
-Policies and procedures tailored to your clinic to ensure adequate supervision of the LVN, including, but not limited to, appropriate a communication between the Naturopathic Doctor and LVN, availability of supervision, location(s) of where services are to be provided, and availability of consultations between the Naturopathic Doctor and LVN regarding the services provided; and
- The methods for the training and continuing evaluation of the competency and qualifications of the LVN.

What can the LVN NOT do?
LVNs are NOT permitted to:
- administer any botulinum toxin, dermal filler or glutathione injections.
- perform platelet rich plasma treatments;
- remove skin growths;
- perform any other cosmetic treatments outside of the scope of an LVN; or
- administer laser, light, steam, or UV treatment therapies unless directed by the ND for a medically necessary purpose (not cosmetic).

How soon can I hire an LVN?
An LVN can start working for you on January 1st, 2023.

Can I hire an RN (registered nurse) and have them do only the things listed as in the scope of an LVN?
No, an ND cannot hire, direct or supervise an RN or NP under any circumstances. RNs can only perform patient care services ordered by and within the scope of licensure of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or clinical psychologist, as defined by Section 1316.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

Naturopathic physicians in Oregon want insurers to pay them at the same rate as other physicians for their services. 

House Bill 2673 would require insurers to reimburse naturopathic physicians at the same rate as other physicians for comparable services. Naturopaths and the bill’s backers say the bill is needed as a matter of fairness: They say they provide many of the same services yet are paid less.  Opponents, including insurers and the Oregon Medical Association, say the move will drive up health care expenses at a time when the state hopes  to keep costs at no more than 3.4% annually.  

Naturopathic doctors mainly serve patients as primary care providers who specialize in natural medicine. This can include a focus on areas like diet and nutrition, lifestyle, mental health and using herbal remedies instead of taking a conventional approach to healing. They can write prescriptions, perform minor surgeries and treat chronic conditions. 

The Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine licenses about 1,200 naturopathic doctors in the state. They are required to have a four-year graduate level naturopathic medicine degree that includes biomedical sciences, clinical sciences and physical and clinical diagnosis methods. The training, which includes clinical settings, can include naturopathic techniques such as nutrition, botanical medicine acupuncture, environmental medicine and counseling. 

In contrast, to earn a doctor of medicine degree and become licensed, physicians must go through four years of medical school and have a three to seven-year residency before they can practice independently.

“It makes no sense to me that insurers should be allowed to pay naturopathic physicians lower rates,” said Rep. Rob Nosse, D-Portland and a chief sponsor of the bill. “Why should these providers be compensated at a lower rate when they are giving a similar amount of care?”

Nosse and others spoke last week to the House Health Care Committee, which took testimony on the bill. Insurers pay naturopathic physicians about 60% of the market median paid to all types of providers, based on a review of Oregon’s all-payer and all-claims database, the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians said in a report to lawmakers. 

Naturopathic doctors “cannot count on good faith from health insurers,” Jeff Clark, a naturopathic physician and legislative chair of the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians, wrote in testimony to lawmakers. “This has been proven to us. Insurers refuse to bargain, refuse to even talk with us about the payment differential forced upon NDs.”

Clark added: “Pay discrimination of (naturopathic doctors) by health insurers appears to be motivated by some kind of xenophobia. We cannot rule out ideological hegemony as the prime motivation. The evidence from our respectful interactions with insurer representatives indicate a strong institutional bias against (us) that has no rational basis.”

Naturopathic physicians work in Zoom+Care clinics, a Portland-based company with about 60 locations that offer primary and specialty care in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Idaho. 

“It is past time to fully recognize NDs as primary care providers, on equal footing to MDs, physician assistants and nurse practitioners, including equitable payment for their professional services,” said Dr. Erik Vanderlip, a medical doctor and chief medical officer of Zoom+Care.

Laws passed in the last decade have required insurance companies to reimburse nurse practitioners and physician assistants at a comparable rate to physicians when they provide comparable services. Like naturopathic physicians, those professions also can provide primary care.

Opponents reminded lawmakers that the state has a goal of keeping health care costs at 3.4% annually through its sustainable cost growth target program, which lawmakers put in place with Senate Bill 889 in 2019. 

“The point is that every rate increase or payment mandate that increases costs -- no matter how slight they appear -- will drive us further from the stated goal of SB 889,” said Vince Porter, director of government relations for Cambia Health Solutions, which owns Regence and BridgeSpan. “It’s important to state this now because the impact of decisions you make in 2021 will show up in the data we will be required to report in future years.”

Providence Health Plans also weighed in with opposition. Dr. Robert Gluckman, the insurer’s chief medical officer, told lawmakers in written testimony that the parity requirement would increase the overall costs to provide medical care without “any corresponding increase in value.”

“Insurers are permitted to vary reimbursement rates among providers to reflect differences in licensure type, education, training, geographic area served, etc.,” Gluckman said. “This practice is appropriate to ensure that we have a sufficient number and mix of high-quality providers necessary to meet the needs of our members.”

Courtni Dresser, government relations director for the Oregon Medical Association, said the group is opposed because the bill does not take into account the differences in training, education that medical doctors face. 

“Compensation should be based on education, training and certification,” Dresser said in written testimony. “The OMA is opposed to this legislation because it does not consider the difference in education, training and certification between a naturopath and an MD.”

You can reach Ben Botkin at ben@thelundreport.org or on Twitter @BenBotkin1.

Read the full article online here.