The California Acupuncture Board’s Licensing and Education Committee on Nov. 5 heard repeated calls from educators, associations and practitioners to raise the entry standard for the profession and tighten curriculum and clinical training.

Chair Francisco Hen Kim opened the discussion and staff reiterated the board’s statutory limit: "The board does not set the degree requirements. The board sets the curriculum requirements," staff said, adding that a change to require a doctorate would need a legislative vehicle.

Multiple public commenters asked the profession and schools to move in that direction. Ryan McCarthy of the California Acupuncture Coalition said his organization supports "raising the entry level to the doctorate degree program, to a minimum of 3,400 hours," noting current master's programs range from about 3,095 to 3,200 hours. Lillian Li, academic dean at Alhambra Medical University, argued higher and unified standards would foster integration with mainstream health systems and stronger public trust: "Education defines scope and the scope defines future. Trust."

Speakers highlighted three related areas: prerequisites and science coursework, measurable clinical competencies, and the number and quality of clinical hours. McCarthy proposed science curricula that include physiology, neurophysiology, endocrinology and neurochemistry and recommended more anatomy and physiology coursework. Farshid Namin and others warned of inconsistent or "loose" clinical education in some programs — including reports of online or unsupervised clinical hours — and urged the board and accreditors to require in‑person supervised competencies.

Several participants recommended that the committee locate and reuse prior curriculum‑competency work rather than starting from scratch. Neil Miller recalled earlier panels and concluded that prior work yielded recommendations that both schools and regulators used to align hours and competencies.

Committee members and staff did not adopt regulatory changes at the meeting. Staff advised stakeholders that the path to a mandatory degree change would be legislative, while the board can move to define or raise curriculum and competency requirements through its regulatory process. Stakeholders were urged to collaborate — schools, accrediting bodies and professional associations — to craft proposals the board could consider or that could be advanced by the Legislature.

The committee will continue stakeholder outreach; no final rulemaking or degree requirement was adopted during the Nov. 5 meeting.