The following is the complete transcript of the historic Montana Board of Chiropractors' February 21, 2025 meeting where board members deliberately refused to take a position on HB 500, a bill granting prescriptive authority to chiropractors, despite fully supporting it behind the scenes. Drs. Walter and Matury planned to testify in favor but avoided linking themselves to the board, ensuring the bill passed without official endorsement. Dr. Rising admitted chiropractors lack competence to prescribe drugs, yet still backed the bill. Only Dr. Gibson, a lone public member and practicing chiropractor raised public safety concerns, which board staff had to force into discussion. This cowardly abstention ensures regulators will later control the bill’s implementation.
TRANSCRIPT
Michael Matury (00:00)
Matury’s here, can you hear me?
Amy Pfarr (00:03)
Okay, if you could bear with me one second. This is Amy for executive officer for the board of chiropractors. Today is February 21 2025 and this is the full board meeting.
Okay, Dr. Julie, if you'd like to call us to order, establish quorum, please.
Julie Murak
All right, call to order this meeting of the Montana Board of Chiropractors. And I will start with an introduction of the State Board of Chiropractors. If you're present, please state here, and I'll begin with myself. Dr. Julie Murak here. Dr. Dustin Rising.
Dustin Rising (00:45)
Here.
Julie Murak (00:47)
Dr. Caitlin Walter.
Dustin Rising (00:59)
Caitlin, I see you. You are muted.
Caitlin Walter (01:07)
Yeah, sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm here.
Caitlin Walter (01:09)
I'm doing it on my cell phone.
Julie Murak (01:14)
Dr. Michael Matury?
Michael Matury
Here.
Julie Murak
Super. Staff members present. Is Kevin Bragg present?
Amy Pfarr
Yeah, We're hoping he's going to pop by, but he is not here yet.
Julie Murak
Okay. And our executive officer, Amy Farr.
Amy Pfarr
I am present. Thank you.
Julie Murak
Super. So we'll move ahead with approval of the agenda and its order. Please state your name with your motion.
May I get a motion to approve today's agenda as it is written?
Dustin Rising (01:59)
Dustin rising I'll motion to approve the agenda for today.
Julie Murak (02:03)
May I get a second?
Caitlin Walter (02:05)
Caitlin Walter, I'll second.
Julie Murak (02:08)
Great, thank you for those. The board now offers the public in attendance an opportunity to comment on any public matter under the jurisdiction of this board that is not on the current agenda. The board cannot act, but will listen to comments and may ask staff to place the issue on a future agenda. The presiding officer may limit the comment period so as to proceed with the board meeting.
I don't know if we have any public comments or any public members.
Amy Pfarr
I see one public member, Mr. Donald Gibson in the room.
Julie Murak
Any comments or questions from public member?
Donald Gibson (03:04)
I apologize for taking so long to get on the call. This is actually Dr. Donald Gibson. I'm a chiropractor up in Haber. Does that disqualify me from commenting?
Julie Murak (03:14)
no sir.
Donald Gibson (03:16)
Okay, and this is as far as the approval of Bill 500, correct?
Julie Murak (03:24)
Is not approval at this point, we are in the process and we're discussing the board's take on the bill at this current time.
Donald Gibson (03:36)
Okay, gotcha. Well, my opinion on that is I'm all for the Medicaid part of the bill. But as far as the prescribing medication part of the bill, am not in favor of that. I think the implications in the future for our patients' well-being, so on and so forth, and our lack of education in that field should be considered.
Other comment I would like to make is what does this imply for other healthcare professions in the future? If our healthcare profession who does not prescribe medicine is allowed to do so, what does that mean for everyone else? Is everybody gonna be prescribing pain meds at that point? Or are they gonna try to do it? I think there are some serious implications here for the future of chiropractic and of healthcare in general, but mostly our patients if we proceed with this and I've.
would like to caution the board in that direction. Thank you.
Julie Murak (04:41)
Thank you, Dr. Gibson for your time, for being here today and voicing your comments and concerns. We appreciate that and we'll take that into consideration as we move forward. And I think we're all kind of learning a little bit more as to the status of this House bill and where it currently sits through the legislative process. And I think that Amy will provide us clarity on
how it's going to affect current practice, as far as how it's going to affect anything into the future, I think kind of remains to be seen to some degree. I know that it's going to require some additional continuing ed for everyone who participates. So with that, any other public comments?
If there's no public comments, we'll move on to a board action today. And the board action is to discuss the current 2025 legislation regarding the implications to the scope of practice for chiropractors in Montana. And with that, I think I can turn the floor over to Amy and Kevin if he's present.
Amy Pfarr
Okay, unfortunately, he has not popped on yet. Has everybody had a chance to review House Bill 500? It should have been included in your board book.
Michael Matury (06:22)
I did.
Amy Pfarr (06:24)
Okay. I think the biggest, one of the bigger takeaways that I had from reviewing the bill is that it's written as an optional endorsement to be given the authorization to prescribe. So it wouldn't be a widespread, in that scope, it would allow a chiropractor if they desire to apply for that endorsement. What I'd like the board to talk about on record today is in the proposed expansion of scope, how would that be supported by corresponding training and or education which ensures competency and public safety?
Michael Matury (07:19)
Caitlin, you want to take that one based on what we talked about yesterday?
Caitlin Walter (07:26)
So this is kind of replicating what New Mexico currently has. There are education programs already prepared for this type of continuing education or endorsement. I think that's something that in this bill, it relies heavily on the board's decision, one on how much education, what hours are qualified, and then as well as what medications are included and not included. In New Mexico, they do have a certain amount that they actually go over in their program that they actually have right now. That is through Chicago's School, I believe.
Michael Matury (08:32)
Was it Northwestern in Minnesota or was it the Chicago School.
Caitlin Walter (08:37)
Believe it is Chicago, but I do.
Michael Matury (08:40)
Ok I might have had that backwards.
Caitlin Walter (08:42)
I do know that Northwestern does have pharmacology and stab lab within their, they have to be for CCE accredited national schools.
Dustin Rising (09:02)
Gotcha
Julie Murak (09:08)
Can I ask what would be the process or procedure for paperwork to achieve this additional endorsement? Does anyone know?
Amy Pfarr (09:25)
I can tell you typically on our licensing end how an endorsement will work as somebody would apply through our site, just like they do for a regular application, pay the endorsement fee, whatever that would be set at, upload the supporting documentation after the board develops X, Y, and Z criteria education or training to be eligible for that endorsement and a license examiner would process that.
Julie Murak
Is there any competency testing or is it all done online?
Caitlin Walter (10:04)
So that would be through that program. So you would do however many hours and then have to show competency through that, I believe.
Michael Matury (10:16)
That was the way I understood it also.
Julie Murak (10:20)
Okay, so it's continued Ed that you would need to seek out at another location and then apply to the state and provide your
information as far as having completed that continuing ed.
Amy Pfarr (10:39)
Mm-hmm.
Julie Murak (10:40)
Okay.
Michael Matury (10:45)
One of the things that we thought of during the discussions we had last night is there's a couple of places in the HB500 bill that needs some clarification. Like the trigger point injection was left rather vague and we should be more specific that that would be the novocaine derivatives, marcaine, lidocaine, that kind of stuff. That's something I believe I'm getting the impression that maybe Brad's gonna help us out with that. Caitlin, did you get that impression as well.
Caitlin Walter
Uh, don't know.
Michael Matury
Okay, I was thinking he was going to tweak a few things before Monday. Just those really glaring things that like those two, think were our big one, biggest ones.
Amy Pfarr (11:33)
And just to jump in here, the board would have the power to set by rule the education training competency requirements for this endorsement.
Julie Murak
Is that something we would consider doing today or is that something that we consider after this goes through committee on Monday?
Amy Pfarr
It would be after. If this goes through, it's looking to be effective around the October timeframe, which would give us time to have interim meetings for rulemaking.
Caitlin Walter (12:17)
I do know like reading the bill, leaves a lot up to the board. Like I said, what drugs are included, education qualifications, how many hours for initial, and then how many hours of continuing education after the initial. And then, qualifications of the program, so I guess.
Julie Murak (12:53)
So go ahead.
Caitlin Walter (12:55)
So I don't know how like if that is a question that will be asked on Monday. A lot of this is up to the board. If you're speaking on behalf of the board, do we want an answer or have some kind of an idea?
Julie Murak (13:15)
Is there an outline by other states that we could tentatively use to follow as far as what's been tried, what has or hasn't worked or anything like that? Is there a template that we can use to give us some guidance? Because as far as our board, kind of writing up some of the parameters on this, we're all going to be new to it. And so to potentially save ourselves some headaches or issues moving forward, potentially looking at some other templates might be beneficial to us on wording and limits or leaving its pretty open ended.
Dustin Rising (14:12)
We do have the New Mexico, I did see it through the association they had it going. So we have the New Mexico rules and I forget it showed number of hours, what kind of training New Mexico even has two levels. And I'd have to look at that again, two levels of like what you're able to prescribe with a level one and what you're able to prescribe and stuff with level two.
I know that they did have that as far as I can recall, but they did have it kind of laid out there with numbers of hours of what you'd need for certification, stuff like that.
Julie Murak (14:45)
Do we know how many states roughly have something like this already incorporated into their scope of practice.
Michael Matury (14:56)
Was it Idaho, I believe that Rob mentioned last night, Oklahoma. I think I'm missing one. Cait, do you remember?
Caitlin Walter (15:04)
New Mexico. I think he said he was working on Alabama. I think there's one more.
Michael Matury (15:13)
Yeah, they helped Idaho and then Oklahoma's had something for like 35 years, he said. Which I didn't. How in the world that ever floated past my radar without knowing that.
Julie Murak (15:24)
So half a dozen maybe.
Caitlin Walter (15:26)
Mm-hmm. With programs already lined up.
And these are programs are through schools. So these aren't just random doctors doing the training. All of it is through one of the accredited chiropractic colleges.
Julie Murak (15:49)
Sure. Which would be something important for us to put in rules, regs and requirements when it's written up, continuing to occur through a school.
Michael Matury (16:07)
Absolutely. Probably should be mentioned on Monday as well. Probably we'll get questions in that regard, but maybe we'll make sure it's part of our agenda from our end too that we mention that.
Amy Pfarr (16:21)
Are There are any safety concerns with this new scope endorsement that the board would like to discuss any potential harm that could possibly come to the public out of this that may be worth having a discussion around.
Julie Murak
Well, I would think initially everyone would need to check and see what their malpractice would and wouldn't cover. You know what your insurance if there is any additional coverage for that additional endorsement. I don't know.
Amy Pfarr
And I think that's a really good point for providers, but for our consumers, is there anything out there that would be worth discussion thinking of our health, public and safety? Public health.
Michael Matury (17:16)
I'm gonna have to figure out how to turn my ringer off.
Michael Matury (17:21)
New phone system, sorry.
Dustin Rising (17:24)
think, yeah, definitely depending. So Northwestern graduate here, this is Dustin Rising, by the way, we took multiple pharmacology classes. We had to have it in, I don't even remember how many courses, but I've got my pharmacology up here on my desk. And at the time I felt very confident with it, because you had to do it. had, you know, years of pharmacology.
Thing is that I haven't done it, you know, it's like when somebody hasn't practiced chiropractic in a long time and you go to renew your license, it's like, okay, well, you haven't done it. What's the competency rate on that? So personally, I would not feel comfortable remembering anything of what I learned in school. So that's where I think a good amount, I would not feel comfortable at all with our chiropractic professional right now, going out and saying it's allowed with, hey, it's within your scope because you learned it in school.
I feel like I've retained quite a bit from school. feel like I'm pretty competent and there is no way in hell I would feel confident prescribing right now. I say a good amount of continuing education or refresher and it might not take that long, but it'd be a good thing to look into just to, you know, some people in this state in the wrong hands, I wouldn't like to see it, but like, hey, show that, you know, so that's why I would definitely prefer a good amount of Continuing Ed and you know, certification, whatever it takes, kind of like dry needling. I wouldn't have wanted to do dry needling without taking a dry needling course and stuff like that, even though we did venepuncture in chiropractic school. It was probably 10, 11 years prior for me and I didn't feel competent, but do I feel competent dry needling right now? Absolutely 100 % competent. So definitely a lot of this weighs very, very heavily on the future education that will be provided for this. Yeah, as it would stand and just like, let's add it to our scope of practice. I'd say absolutely not, because I'm not even comfortable with myself being able to prescribe something right now or interactions, reactions with other drugs, stuff like that. So that would be the concern for the public health, I think, would weigh heavily on the education requirements for this future bill.
Amy Pfarr (19:46)
Thank you, Dr. Rising. We have Kevin Bragg, our bureau chief. He has been able to hop on in between hearings. So I'd like to give him the opportunity to speak if he would like to do so to respect his time, because I don't think he'll be able to be on very long. Kevin, is there anything that... Is he still here?
Kevin Bragg (20:08)
Yeah, I'm here. Sorry. Thank you, Amy. If you give me an opportunity to talk, I will talk. That's probably my problem, not yours, or it will soon turn into your problem. I really appreciate the board getting together to discuss this potential scope expansion or this clarification of scope. However, you want to phrase that I don't care one way or the other. It's important for you as board members to look at it. And again, as Amy has just asked you to do to focus on it from a public safety perspective. And the other thing that that I want to note this bill requires the board and you'll forgive me because I have to stare at somebody else's. I'm in somebody else's office and this is all foreign to me. So I'm looking different ways. I apologize for the lack of eye contact. This requires the board to set up an endorsement for someone to gain this prescriptive authority. And so much like Mr. Rising noted, there's going to need to be parameters set up by the board for qualification of that endorsement. And that's not something that we're going to solve today.
That's something that we'll continue to look at. I think I've looked at too many bills today. I think the effective date on this one would be October the 15th since it doesn't have a specific date. And so in that instance, you and Amy are going to be getting together, doing some more investigation about what we can utilize or what the board can utilize to qualify someone for this prescriptive endorsement. And so again, I appreciate the board members. I know your time is very valuable and your volunteer service to the state, even though you get your hundred dollars. That's very appreciated and we'll have these ongoing discussions today. We really wanted to convene the board and get your perspective on is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Is it a good thing with side boards again, setting it up with an endorsement feature like the representative Alblinder has brought.
I think gives it some of those sideboards and certainly allows the board to have some discretion in in telling providers as well as the public what it is that someone's going to need to do to qualify for one of these endorsements. So thank you again for your time. These discussions will be ongoing. If somebody's got a question, I'd be happy to entertain those. You're certainly not limited to that. I'm going to try not to run out on you, but if I get pulled away, I may have to go sit in another room for another four hours like I did this morning. So I apologize.
Micheal Matury
I don't really have a question, but I guess comment to the public safety thing. That's one of the reasons we're going to keep this scope of what medicines we are going to hope to prescribe to a minimum. It's going to be the muscle relaxant family, the prescription strength, non-steroidals, steroidal medications, and then maybe if the trigger point injection things, that's the different marcane, lidocaine, novacaine type drugs. And obviously they all have indications, contraindications and drug interactions that all got to be part of the process. But again, a very limited scope, you know, purposely leaving out things such as opioids and those in the like because that's a whole other different monster. That's my comment.
Donald Gibson (23:33)
This is Dr. Gibson and Haver. Thank you guys for having me on here. So just a couple of things I think the board should consider, like what are the legalities of governing that kind of legislation? I mean, we're not really trained in pharmacology, right? And if you look at, I just looked up yesterday. So from 1975 to 2007, there were only 26 deaths attributed to chiropractic care and they were associated with the vertebral artery dissections. Last year alone, there were 106,000 deaths from properly prescribed medication. If we add prescribing medications to our scope of practice, we are undermining the integrity of this profession. We've been a drug-free profession for 130 years.
Patients flock to us by the millions every year because they're not getting what they need from the medical profession. And I don't feel like we need to go down that road. The osteopaths did it and look at where they are now. All right.
Couple other things, when you talk about education, pharmacists have four years of postgraduate education, including 1,470 hours of clinicals, just to be able to dispense medications. Medical doctors have got four years of postgraduate education, followed by three to seven years of residency, and they still get it wrong all the time. How many of us have seen that in our offices? We.
I'm sorry, but some course that...somebody comes up with to get certified to have this endorsement does not and will not constitute adequate education. I mean, they've got three to seven years of residency and they can't get it right most of the time. This is a dangerous, dangerous road that we are going down as far as public safety goes. Our patients trust us with their health and their wellbeing. And you go start adding that stuff in and you talk about drug interactions. If anybody drinks alcohol, so to give you a little background. My father was a chiropractor 52 years. He practiced in South Africa. One of his patients was the head of the pharmacology department of Rhodes University, which at the time was a very, very prestigious school in the world. And he said to him one day, said, why don't you take drugs? Why do you come and see me? He said, Dr. Gibson, if you take one drug and you do not drink any alcohol, you have a pretty good idea of what it's gonna do in your body.
If you take two drugs and you do not have any alcohol, you have a guess of what it's going to do in your body. If you take three drugs and you don't drink any alcohol, you have absolutely no way of knowing how those drugs are going to interact with each other. And how many of our patients are on three, four, five, 10, 20 different medications? We will not be able to have the understanding and the training that it will take to manage polypharmacy. It's incredibly dangerous. Not only that, the education standards established by the CCE don't require teaching or testing for competency in prescribing drugs. The National Board of Chiropractic Examinations, which are necessary for licensure, they don't assess competency for these issues. And every state housing a chiropractic program accredited by the CCE prohibits the prescribing of drugs and injections into the body. And I'd like to know also, somebody mentioned different schools are actually teaching these courses. Would somebody please let me know which schools those are? Yeah, that's what I have to say. So thank you very much. Appreciate your time.
Dustin Rising (27:40)
if I may, Dr. Gibson, this is Dr. Rising. and I think I understand and respect a lot of what you're saying. one of the things that we have probably all gone through and not just on occasion, but quite often is the, Hey, this is just super flared up. We need some kind of muscle relaxing just to get this calm down. Let's go send you on over here. Let's go send you on over here.
And we're sending out for the same prescription that we're talking about here. We're not talking about blood pressure meds and cancer medications and stuff like that. We're talking about kind of some more simple anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxant type things. And that's why this is not, this is why I think this is brought up the way it is, is we're not looking at cholesterol medications and being medical providers. This stuff is very specific to musculoskeletal pain and inflammatory response. so with that, it does limit the scope a lot, but into our own needs. And we all know how difficult, especially I even feel since the pandemic, it is for people to get in to see their medical doctors. So if it's like, hey, we just need to this flare up.
calm down a little bit. can't even adjust you today. I can't do anything with you today because it's so inflamed. So it's like, an ibuprofen, Advil or Levon aren't quite gonna do it. This would be that time of like, hey, go see your medical doctor. Their medical doctor might be booked out for four weeks. And this is where it would be like, hey, it's for the patient's interest to be able to have this, these very, it would be musculoskeletal specific, you know, or related drugs to be able to have that, I think communities may not be able to get in a medical provider or even around here. You're going to urgent cares or could be waiting for hours or ER where you could be waiting for, I mean, I've had people wait for six to eight hours. So I think we're looking for people who care about their patients. We're not doing this to do this instead of chiropractic, we're doing this in those rare cases where like, hey, this could really help you. And I mean, being completely honest, I'll have once a month where I will go and refer on out. I mean, at least once a month where I'm like, hey, you need to go talk to your primary and try and get in for some muscle relaxers or something like this, because I can't help you. But that's a little bit on the other side of it.
Donald Gibson (30:24)
Well, Dr. Rising, I refer patients out all the time too, right? But they already have, they're already taking muscle relaxers, they're already taking NSAIDs, they're already taking all this stuff. I don't need to prescribe it. They've got it. It's not, it is the practice of medicine. And honestly, if people want to practice medicine, go back to medical school, get your MD, then you got an MD and a DC and you can do it all. But don't, don't sully the name of chiropractic. mean, there people have gone before us, people have been jailed to practice this, saying it's not the practice of medicine. I mean, we're... don't sully the profession that we have today by introducing medication into it, stuff that we just simply are not qualified and shouldn't be doing. Thank you for your time.
Amy Pfarr (31:17)
I think too, there's definitely pros and cons that both of you made very good points. And the fact that this isn't automatically going to be thrown in as scope of practice in that it's going to be an additional endorsement or a choice to add something different to your ability through the course of your practice, just like dry needling. Or just like some other continued ed endorsements would be. So I guess I look at it as a choice to, as an ancillary to add to your practice. So, you know.
Caitlin Walter (32:08)
One of the things we also need to look at is, you know, we would have to be working with the pharmacology board, because there's in other states, I'm not sure exactly what states, but there are controlled substances numbers, DEA numbers, and there are dangerous drugs, DEA numbers. We are, with controlled substances, we're not doing opioids. We're not doing those medications. So that's one thing we can also state to the public. These are the lists. The DEA number is for this specifically. But that's something that us as a board also has to look at.
Julie Murak (33:01)
You know, another consideration I'm just thinking of anyone who would serve on a board in theory would almost have to have this endorsement potentially. So then if you have practitioners brought in front of the board, would board members not need the endorsement to fully and competently evaluate any complaints and cases brought to the board? So that you also got the background knowledge to go through an appropriate screening process.
Amy Pfarr
Madam Chair, if I may, that's that is a excellent, excellent point. And I think some of the conversation we're getting into would be better served down the road after we know what happens with this bill. And these are all really good ideas that I think would be great to add into rulemaking should this pass. Just to kind of pull us back a little bit, as the bill stands right now, would the board like to make a motion to support or oppose. And as I said at the beginning, it is okay to abstain as well. And if there needs to be additional discussion among the board on that, please feel free to do so. But I just kind of want to keep us keep us in the lane that just looking at the bill language as is and if we want to support, oppose or abstain and not get too far down and what's more of that rulemaking conversation that will happen if and when this bill does pass.
Julie Murak
So then a question on that procedure, if we would make a motion to, for example, support, then it would go into committee Monday and then we would proceed forward with any rulemaking. If we would motion to abstain, does it still proceed forward? I guess I'm not quite sure what our motion will have for an effect on the procedure process going forward to Monday. And depending on how everything comes out on Monday, then what comes back to us as a board as far as our obligations.
Amy Pfarr
Great question, Madam Chair. I'm actually going to default to Kevin while he's still here and let him respond to that.
Kevin Bragg (35:42)
Thank you, madam chair and Amy, if the board chooses to make a motion to either support or oppose the bill again as drafted that hearing is on Monday. That is a tight turnaround to get to the governor's office and get approval back. And if somebody wanted to go and testify, I don't know whether or not we'd be able to accomplish that. I will do everything in my power to make sure that that does get approved or at least reviewed.
So if you choose to support the bill want to send someone to testify, you can go and somebody can go and testify on behalf of the board. If the full board votes to have the same position, if the board abstains and the bill goes through committee passes out the House and the Senate and is subsequently signed by the governor's office, the board would still be required to undertake rulemaking to implement the legislation. And so we have had several board meetings with multiple other boards about bills and many of them have chosen just to track legislation and not take a position one way or the other. You're certainly not required to support or oppose. We want your subject matter expertise. That's why you're here. But if you choose to abstain and the bill ends up passing, then you're still going to have to implement it same way you would if you choose to support it.
You would still have to implement it and if you choose to oppose it and the governor's office gives you a clearance to do that and go and oppose the bill, then you're still if the bill passes going to have to implement it. So you are required to do what legislation would require the board to do assuming passage of the bill. I hope that makes sense.
Julie Murak (37:27)
So my understanding then, ultimately, regardless of where we make a motion to act
legislation is going to proceed forward as it's going to proceed. And we don't have a lot of control how what the outcome is on Monday. We just have control then as to how we're going to work with it or around it or whatever rulemaking after Monday. Correct?
Kevin Bragg (38:03)
That is correct, Madam Chair.
Julie Murak (38:07)
So then potentially a motion to abstain, at least we're making a formal motion. And we basically then just sit and wait and see what comes out of committee on Monday and work with it after that.
Kevin Bragg (38:26)
Madam chair that is correct. Amy will continue to watch the bill as well. Everyone at the department, but she'll be your direct liaison to that. And then once it goes through, if it goes through, I should say, if it gets out of committee, she'll notify the board and keep you up to date on that. There is no again, no positive negative to support, oppose, abstain or track, which abstaining and track are kind of the same in my frame of mind. But I wanted to give the board the opportunity to help the department if there is a specific position to be taken by the board. We certainly want to hear that. And so again, with that, we just leave it up to you as board members to make a recommendation or not. And again, no harm, no foul, whatever you choose to do.
Michael Matury (39:16)
I think I should this is doctor Matury. I'd like to make sure I make apparent that I plan on testifying on Monday for the bill and of course I'm doing it as me. The practicing chiropractor. So I'm assuming I should make no reference to me being on the board unless I'm presenting that we happen to oppose it or accept it today. Does that make sense?
Kevin Bragg
Doctor, it does make sense. I appreciate you asking for that clarification. You are always welcome to go to the legislature on your own behalf and testify in support or opposition of any bill. You're not limited to that. It's just the representation of the board as a whole that requires that pre approval. Again, if the board votes to go and testify and we get that permission from the governor's office turned around, then you can certainly state specifically, I am here on behalf of the board of chiropractic.
If we don't get that approval or the board doesn't make a motion to testify one way or the other, you can certainly say that you're a board member, but please identify yourself as not speaking on behalf of the board. That's just the clarification that we always ask for if a board member chooses to go and appear and testify one way or the other.
Michael Matury
Okay, perfect. I wanted to make sure I was transparent and make sure I was assuming that all correctly.
Julie Murak (40:45)
Anyone else have any other comments as far as any comments on motions proceeding forward? Are we at a point right now, Kevin and Amy, where we want to make a motion on this as a board and proceed on to the next topic? Or does anyone else have any further discussions?
Dustin Rising (41:19)
About fellow board members, just open discussion here if we may. I haven't heard a whole lot from Julie and other time. Caitlin, mean, what are your guys' thoughts on this bill right now?
Julie Murak (41:36)
My thought right now is I would feel most comfortable motioning to abstain and track and see how everything plays out on Monday and go from there.
Caitlin Walter (41:55)
I am in the same boat as Dr. Matury as I will be speaking and having the testimony in Helena on Monday at the hearing. As an individual, I think that because of the wording and it being optional, we are not forcing any chiropractors into having this prescription right is just another modality for us to help better treat patients. As a board, I would agree with Julie that it might be something that we abstain and watch because in the end, doesn't matter what the board does at this point. If it gets approved, we're the ones who have to make the decision. And it's very clear in this current bill that a lot of this rides on the decision of the board. So that's my opinion.
Dustin Rising (43:04)
And so I guess Amy, Kevin, it sounds like if anything, this board's decision today will just help or hinder Monday's legislative session of like, hey, while the board is in favor or the board is not in favor of this. Yeah, it sounds like legislation proceeds on regardless, but this would be kind of like, hey, you do have the board's backing or you do not have the board's backing. But we proceed on through as what's or the board remain neutral on this and they're going to let it play out through legislation. That's kind of how that's working.
Amy Pfarr (43:42)
Correct. It's a formality. And with this tight turnaround, I'm not certain we can guarantee that the governor's office would be able to get back to us to approve testimony. So I don't want to set that expectation that it would be a guaranteed thing as it's Friday afternoon and the hearing is set to be sometime Monday. So I don't want to have that expectation out there. Not that that would at all make your decision and your vote and your motion different, but I don't want to guarantee that we'll hear back in time in order to testify. And Kevin, please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Kevin Bragg (44:29)
No, that's correct. And but again, I don't want anybody else to walk away with the feeling that your your meeting today is useless. There's a hearing in the House, there's a hearing in the Senate. And so if it were to get out of committee were to pass the House, then it will be heard again in the Senate. So there's the opportunity even if we don't get that clarification or that turnaround done by Monday, which again, we may be able to there's still a second house or a second hearing in a different chamber. So it's still valuable discussion and certainly appreciate whatever position you choose to take.
Julie Murak (45:10)
Well, I guess at this point, is there any other comments, concerns or questions on moving forward with a motion?
Amy Pfarr
Just I just want to double check. do. We do have a few public members that haven't commented that are on here. They may just be here to listen, which is absolutely wonderful, but we may want to check in Madam Chair to see if there are any additional public comments before we make a motion.
Julie Murak
OK, are there any any members of the public who have any other questions, concerns or input on this topic before we proceed with a motion?
Amy Pfarr
Not seeing any, think, Madam Chair, we're good to continue. Okay, with that, I would move to motion that this board will abstain and continue to track the legislative process regarding the introduction of prescriptive authority into the scope of practice of chiropractic in the state of Montana.
Caitlin Walter (46:32)
Do you also need to add the second part of Montana Medicaid? Since that's part of it as well.
Julie Murak (46:40)
Do we need, is that gonna be a separate discussion or is it all one?
Caitlin Walter (46:46)
It's currently all in one bill.
Julie Murak (46:49)
Okay, do we want, is there any discussion regarding the addition of Medicaid? Is there anything that Amy or Kevin wanted to introduce or comment on before we move forward?
Kevin Bragg (47:09)
Thank you, madam chair. I just I do want to note that the board has little to no control, if any, over Medicaid. And so that's really not something that we're going to have a lot of impact on. That's the only notation that I would make.
Julie Murak (47:25)
So are we okay moving forward with the motion as it was presented to just include the prescriptive authority at this point?
Kevin Bragg (47:34)
I would ask maybe to reframe the motion as to just continue to track. I think it's, I've got the wrong bill. It's House Bill 500. And I think that's just the easiest way, because since that encompasses all of those points.
Julie Murak (47:53)
Okay, then I motion to abstain and track House Bill 500 and allow it to proceed forward through the legislative process.
Michael Matury (48:12)
Mike Matury here, I'll second that motion.
Amy Pfarr
And then we'll need a vote.
Julie Murak
Okay, all in favor of the motion as it's presented.
Michael Matury
Aye.
Caitlin Walter
Aye.
Dustin Rising
Aye.
Julie Murak
aye.
Any opposed, nay.
Okay, motion carries.
Amy Pfarr
Okay. So moving on in our agenda, Madam Chair, then I think we can get a motion to nominate a primary and a secondary if the governor's office grants permission. Oh no, ignore me. Ignore me. I'm so sorry. My apologies. We don't need that at this point. Moving on for real this time to number five, our meeting schedule. So we have our in-person on March 13th, the day before the conference in Helena, where we'll be meeting at the Labor and Industry Building on 301 South Park Avenue at one o'clock to kind of meet and greet those we may not have met and have a more robust agenda where we'll go over licensing statistics, financials, possibly non routines that may have popped up and will probably revisit the legislative discussion if we've had movement on that bill by then.
Okay. Any other questions or comments regarding the next meeting schedule that will be live in person.
Dustin Rising (50:13)
I think I shared this, I will be unable to make that meeting just so you guys know. It sounded like we'll still, we should still have quorum without me, but I will be unavailable on that date.
Julie Murak (50:26)
You will be missed, Dr. Rising.
Dustin Rising (50:28)
Thank you.
Julie Murak (50:33)
Okay, with that, we looking to adjourn? Any other topics or questions or concerns?
Amy Pfarr
I thank you guys very much for being here on short notice and for all the hard work you do for our state and our licensees and very much appreciated with your time and expertise.
Julie Murak
Great. Thank you, Amy. And thank you everybody else for being here. Thank you. And I will be updating you with the legislative process as it comes about. And feel free to follow the bill tracker. I can send out an email with that information if you don't know that process. So that way you can keep eyes on it as well. That would be great. All right. Thank you all so much and have a wonderful weekend.
Julie Murak (51:24)
Meeting adjourned.
Dustin Rising (51:25)
Thank you, Amy.
Michael Matury (51:28)
Amy, bye.
Share this post