Garth, In regard to my article, I have mentioned the only Guidelines that we have in our profession for the commercial insurance patient and they are Mercy and the CCP documents. I agree, along with everyone else, that both are out of date and are far from perfect, but they arc the ONLY documents that we have to guide us at the present time and have been used against our profession to deny care—maybe not so much anymore but they were at one time. As an evidence based practitioner, I read everything for what it is meant to be without any outside influences telling me what the document means to them. So, I do mention the CCP document because, IF one reads the document, the document does mention that OBJECTIVE indicators of the subluxation should be measured and that, when the OBJECTIVE indicators of the subluxation are gone, then the patient should be released from care. You mention in your email, "...leaving the decision totally up to the SUBJECTIVE impression of the DCs whose incentive is to continue care as long as possible." As 1 mentioned earlier, it is the purpose of the CCP document not to treat the subjective indicators but the OBJECTIVE indicators and, therefore, it is not the opinion of the DCs but the objective measures of the findings that allows for the continued treatment of the patient. I am sorry for the bad taste that 1 have left in your mouth on this point but, actually, some people had the same bad taste about Mercy until the profession actually sat down and READ it and found that it is quite a fair and reasonable document for its time. I wish there were another document that was more up to date but there is nothing thus far on the horizon, as we have witnessed with the even more harsh document of CCGPP. I look forward to constructive feedback such as yours, Garth. I wouldn't mind having an ongoing dialogue with a passionate person such as yourself for the betterment of the profession. Dwight Whynot, D.C.
