Florida Board Discusses Accreditation Cartel and NBCE Part IV Fiasco
Originally published: 2025-09-12
The chiropractic profession just got a clear look at the quiet power dynamics shaping chiropractic education and licensure. Speaking on behalf of the Florida Chiropractic Society (FCS), Dr. Paul Sorchy pressed the Florida Board of Chiropractic Medicine to acknowledge two intertwined problems: the cartel-like control of chiropractic accreditation and the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners’ plan to centralize Part IV testing in Greeley, Colorado. He urged the Board to consider recognizing an additional accrediting agency and to scrutinize the access and cost burdens of sending every Florida candidate to a single test site for the Part IV grift.
What Sorchy asked for
Sorchy highlighted the need to end accreditation monopolies and invited the Board to articulate criteria for recognizing an alternative accreditor so Florida programs and graduates are not captive to one gatekeeper. He also asked whether the Board had evaluated the logistical and economic burdens of Part IV centralization on Florida candidates.
“We believe it’s crucial for the Board to begin considering the possibility of recognizing an additional accrediting agency… and to evaluate the burdens of centralizing Part IV in Colorado.”
CLICK HERE for a copy of the FCS letter
What the Board said out loud
A couple of the Board members voiced sympathy on both issues. One member explicitly supported “making it easier” for candidates to access Part IV and said the “accreditation monopoly… needs to be reworked.” But the refrain that followed was revealing: the Board repeatedly described itself as an “approving body,” not the “movement,” and insisted that both accreditation recognition and the NBCE requirement are set by statute. Translation: we agree in principle, but our hands are tied.
“We’re more of an approving body as opposed to the movement… Dealing with an accreditation monopoly needs to be reworked.”
Another member, who actually serves as an NBCE examiner, defended without any evidence centralization as a “standardization” play and suggested it would “supposedly” reduce costs, while acknowledging he hadn’t seen the “real numbers.” That concession matters. If the case for centralization rests on standardization without transparent cost and access data, the burden shifts to NBCE and the State to prove its claims.
The selective use of “statute”
Here is where the double standard bites. This same Board has been willing to entertain scope expansions like dry needling or drug privileges through all sorts of maneuvers without first securing explicit statutory change, yet on accreditation reform and Part IV they refuse to even entertain the discussion because “its in the statute.” That is not consistency. That is policy preference masquerading as legal constraint.
When the topic threatens the chiropractic cartel’s choke points, accreditation control and a third-party practical exam that colleges do not control or want the Board retreats behind statute. When the topic expands scope toward medicalization, the statutory caution mysteriously fades. Floridians deserve one standard.
What Florida should do next
Legislative clarity: Modernize chapter language so the Board can recognize alternative accreditors that meet rigorous, transparent quality metrics, ending de facto monopoly.
De-entangle licensure from a single vendor exam: Remove NBCE Part IV as a statutory proxy for clinical competence. Florida should rely on state, regional, and national licensure outcomes and on program-based assessments of clinical competency instead of outsourcing to a private test product.
Demand data before deference: Require NBCE to produce public, auditable evidence that centralization improves validity, reliability, access, and total candidate cost. Assertions are not evidence.
Adopt a consistent legal standard: If statute truly bars action on accreditation alternatives and Part IV, then it also bars scope expansions by rule. Either respect statutory limits across the board or stop using “statute” selectively.
Bottom line
The FCS did what the profession needs more leaders to do: say the quiet part out loud. Florida’s Board signaled agreement with the problems, then hid behind process. That posture is no longer credible. If the Board can push the envelope on scope by doing end runs around the statute, it can certainly champion legislative reforms that end accreditation monopolies, restore program-based competency, and stop exporting Florida’s future chiropractors to a single testing center in Colorado. The public interest is not served by cartels. It is served by transparent standards, fair access, and one set of rules for everyone.
“I would support making it easier for people to get to Part IV… and dealing with an accreditation monopoly needs to be reworked.” Hold the Board to that.
