On March 11, 1999 the Washington State Chiropractic Quality Assurance Commission distinguished itself as the first state chiropractic board to embrace the new CCP guidelines.

In so doing, the Commission voted to approve the CCP guidelines as the document that embodies the chiropractic standard of care for a subluxation-based practice in Washington. The Commission will vote again on May 13, 1999 to draft an interpretive statement formally adopting the guidelines that will be filed with the state Code Reviser.

According to Commissioner Bob Cummins, D.C., the CCP guidelines are "what we do" in Washington as chiropractors. The practical effect of adopting the CCP guidelines is that they will serve as the interpretive guide for any disciplinary action brought by the board against a chiropractor.

As such, chiropractors who can prove their care was rendered in accordance with the guidelines and other applicable disciplinary rules would have nothing to worry about.

As Commissioner Maria Best, D.C. eloquently stated in the Commission hearing, "with these guidelines, we now have the opportunity to define the standard of care within our own profession rather than letting the insurance industry do it for us."

The commission was careful to point out that the CCP guidelines were not the exclusive guidelines to be used in Washington, but subjects of disciplinary proceedings would need to have an acceptable set of guidelines on which to justify their actions.

Many of the other commissioners echoed Dr. Best's sentiments, ultimately voting 12-2 in favor of approving the guidelines. Matthew McCoy, D.C., one of the contributing authors of the CCP guidelines, was on hand to testify in support of the guidelines and answer any concerns on the part of the commission.

The Washington State Chiropractic Association has now voted to draft a proposed interpretive statement adopting the guidelines to be submitted to the commission for consideration. Prior to doing so, the Association heard from certain members who allegedly had concerns about the guidelines, but these were addressed by Dr. McCoy who was also present at the meeting for this purpose.

After McCoy's presentation, he was then asked by the association member who had expressed the concerns to assist the Association in drafting its proposed interpretive statement.

Predictably, the doctors expressing the strongest concerns were those who rely upon the Mercy document to perform independent chiropractic examinations (ICEs) to judge other doctors' care.

Because the CCP guidelines allow for a model of care based upon function rather than pain, the ICE doctors have every reason to be concerned. No longer can they espouse those standards of care advocated by insurance companies that benefit themselves rather than the chiropractic profession.

Expressing particular satisfaction over the Washington state action was Terry A. Rondberg, D.C., president of the World Chiropractic Alliance and Chiropractic Benefit Services (CBS).

CBS is the only chiropractic malpractice program which uses the CCP guidelines as its underwriting criteria. Most other insurance providers contributed funding to, and continue to promote, the widely rejected Mercy document.

Additionally, the terms of acceptance agreement used by CBS policy holders are identical to the terms of acceptance language set forth in Chapter 9 of the guidelines.