Doctor to Doctor

NCMS President Comments on the Practitioner Profile

April 2nd, 2008 by Helen Colevins

On Behalf of Hadley Callaway, MD

The NCMS met with representatives of the Medical Board many times to discuss this issue.  We repeatedly asked the Board to post only those malpractice settlements that were determined to result from sub-standard medical care. 
 
The Medical Board wants to post all malpractice settlements and judgments.  If this happens, then no doctor will agree to settlement with a plaintiff.  The doctor will take his case to a jury rather than get a “black mark” on the Medical Board web site.  If a doctor provides good care but agrees to settle a case, then he will have an undeserved black mark on the website.
 
The NCMS wants only the settlements with sub-standard care to be posted.  If this happens, then the doctor will resist “settling” with the Medical Board.  He will want the Board to hear his case, clear his name, and not put a black mark next to his name on the web site.  In borderline cases, doctors will be unwilling to accept a “letter of concern” because it will be listed on the web site.  He will take his case through the Medical Board hearing process to its final determination.  This will load the Medical Board with many more contested cases.  However, the only doctors with a black mark on the website will be those who were determined by the Board to have given sub-standard care.
 
The NCMS feels that it is better to post only the sub-standard cases.  It will require extra work by the Medical Board, but the public will benefit greatly from having accurate information about physician quality on the Board website.
 
Please let us know if you agree or disagree, and we will pass that on to the Medical Board.
 
Hadley Callaway, MD

Rules for Practitioner Profile Informaiton

April 2nd, 2008 by Helen Colevins

Subchapter 32W – Practitioner Profile Information
21 NCAC 32W .0101   Required information.
A. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-5.2, all physicians and physician assistants licensed by the Board shall provide the following information on an application for licensure and annual registration.  Additionally, all physicians and physician assistants shall provide the following information within 30 days of any change in the information on the profile:
(1)  The names of all medical, osteopathic, or physician assistant schools  attended and the year of graduation.
(2)  Any graduate medical or osteopathic education at any institution approved by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, the Committee for the Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools, the American Osteopathic Association, or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada or any graduate physician assistant training.
(3)  Any specialty board certification and whether that board is approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties, the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists of American Osteopathic Association, or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
(4)  Specialty area(s) of practice.
(5)  Current hospital affiliation(s).
(6)  Address and telephone number of the primary practice setting.
(7)  An e-mail address or facsimile number which shall not be made available to the public and shall be used for the purpose of expediting the dissemination of information about a public health emergency.
(8)  Any final disciplinary order or other action required to be reported to the Board pursuant to G.S. 90 14.13 that results in a suspension or revocation of privileges.
(9)  Any final disciplinary order or action of any regulatory Board or agency including other state medical Boards, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Medicare, the North Carolina Medicaid program, or another state’s Medicaid program.
(10)  Any felony convictions including the date of the conviction, the nature of the conviction, the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred, and the sentence imposed.
(11) Any misdemeanor convictions other than minor traffic offenses.  The report must include the nature of the conviction, the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred, and the punishment imposed.  A person shall be considered convicted for purposes of this rule if they pled guilty, were found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, or entered a plea of nolo contendere.  Certain convictions will be published pursuant to 21 NCAC 32W .0104.
(12)  Any medical license, active or inactive, granted by another state or country.
(13)  Malpractice payment information as described in 21 NCAC 32W .0103.

 
21 NCAC 32W .0102   Voluntary information.
Physicians and Physician Assistants may provide additional information on hours of continuing education earned, subspecialties obtained, academic appointments, volunteer work in indigent clinics, and honors or awards received.

 

21 NCAC 32W .0103   Reporting of medical malpractice judgments and settlements.

A. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 90-5.2 and 90-14.3, all physicians and physician assistants licensed by the Board shall report all medical malpractice judgments and settlements affecting or involving the physician or physician assistant on an application for licensure and annual registration.  Additionally, all physicians and physician assistant licensed by the Board shall report all medical malpractice judgments and settlements affecting or involving the physician or physician assistant within 30 days of the initial payment or the date of the judgment. A judgment or settlement shall include a lump sum payment or the first payment of multiple payments, a payment made from personal funds, or payment made by a third party on behalf of a physician or physician assistant. 

B.  Each report of a settlement or judgment shall indicate:

(1)  The date the judgment or settlement was paid.

(2)  The specialty in which the doctor was practicing at the time the incident occurred that resulted in the judgment or settlement.

(3)  The total amount of the judgment or settlement in United States dollars.

(4)  The city, state, and country in which the judgment or settlement occurred.

(5) The date of the occurrence of the events leading to the judgment or settlement.

C. For each physician or physician assistant, the Board shall publish all payments made or judgments entered within the past seven years along with the date of the occurrence associated with the payment or judgment and the date of the payment or judgment.  Additionally, the Board shall publish whether public disciplinary action was taken based on the Board’s review of the care that led to the malpractice payment.  The Board shall not release or publish the individually identifiable numeric values of reported judgments or settlements or the identity of the patient associated with the judgment or settlement.

D.  For each malpractice payment or judgment that is published, the physician or physician assistant will be given the opportunity to provide a brief statement explaining the circumstances that led to the payment or judgment.  The physician or physician assistant shall not publish identifiable numeric values of reported judgments or settlements or disclose the patient’s identity, including information relating to dates and places of treatment or any other information that would tend to identify the patient.  In the event the statement provided by the licensee does not conform to the requirements of this rule, the Board will edit such statements to ensure conformity.

21 NCAC 32W .0104  Publishing Misdemeanor Convictions
The Board will only publish those misdemeanor convictions involving offenses against a person, offenses of moral turpitude, offenses involving the use of drugs or alcohol, and violations of public health and safety codes.  The Board will publish such convictions for a period of ten years from the date of conviction. 

21 NCAC 32W .0105    Noncompliance or falsification of profile information.
A. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §90-5.2(d), failure to provide the information required by 21 NCAC 32W .0101 and 21 NCAC 32W .0103 within 30 days of the request for information by the Board or within 30 days of a change in the information on the profile may constitute unprofessional conduct and may subject the licensee to disciplinary action by the Board.
B. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §90-14(a)(3) and 90-5.2(d),  providing false information to the Board for the physician profile system shall constitute unprofessional conduct and shall subject the licensee to disciplinary action by the Board.

 

NC Medical Board Proposes Rules on Physician Web Profiling

April 2nd, 2008 by Helen Colevins

NCMS Objects to Posting of All Medical Malpractice Judgments and Settlements  

The NC Medical Board has published proposed rules that, if adopted, will result in public posting of each licensee’s total number of medical malpractice judgments and settlements occurring within the past seven (7) years, without the dollar amount or other information which could identify the patient.  In addition, the posting would note whether public disciplinary action related to each payment was taken by the NC Medical Board.  Physicians and physician assistants also will be given the opportunity to provide a brief statement explaining the circumstances that led to the judgment or settlement.

The proposed rule also provides for the reporting and publication of other background facts including the physician’s education, specialty certification, criminal history, and peer review discipline. 

The proposed rules are the result of a new state law that requires the NC Medical Board to make certain information available to the public. The law, however, does not specify what information must appear on the NC Medical Board’s website.
 
The NCMS opposes posting all malpractice judgments and settlements on the Board’s website.  The NCMS recommends posting only those cases that have resulted in public disciplinary action by the NC Medical Board.  This will assist and inform patients by publicizing only those cases where quality of care was inadequate. 
 
The NCMS believes the proposed rule, which requires posting all judgments and settlements, will make the public believe such judgments and settlements indicate poor quality of care.  This is incorrect and misleading.  Many factors lead to malpractice settlements, including business decisions by the insurance carrier.  Physicians who treat complex injuries and severe illnesses may be more subject to litigation.  The number of malpractice judgments and settlements is therefore an unreliable indicator of quality.

Over the past two years, the NC Medical Board has strengthened its process for reviewing these cases.  The NCMS believes that the NC Medical Board is uniquely qualified to determine whether the quality of care standard has been met.  Publishing only those cases where the physician or physician assistant has been determined by the NC Medical Board to warrant public discipline provides the public with information that is more informative and less misleading.

The NCMS has made its position clear to the NC Medical Board and will file comments opposing this provision during the rulemaking process.  The NCMS encourages all licensed physicians and physician assistants to read the proposed rules carefully and participate in the public comment and public hearing process.  Comments are due by June 30, 2008.

There are other features of the proposed rule which the NCMS supports.  For example, we agree that no dollar amounts or patient identifying information should be posted.  

Send Your Comments
Written comments on the proposed rule can be sent to Janelle Rhyne, MD, president, NC Medical Board, with a copy to Katherine Carpenter, at PO Box 20007, Raleigh, NC, 27619-0007; or an email can be sent to Dr. Rhyne and Ms. Carpenter at: janelle.rhyne@ncmedboard.org and katherine.carpenter@ncmedboard.org.  Comments are due by June 30th.   The public hearing will take place on June 30th at the NC Medical Board office at 1203 Front Street, Raleigh, NC, 27609-7533.
 
Members are requested to share their thoughts and concerns on the proposed rules including copies of formal comments to the NC Medical Board with the NCMS.   Please forward any written comments to Melanie Phelps at mphelps@ncmedsoc.org
 

 

More on Third party payor

March 25th, 2008 by Helen Colevins

 From, Deepak R. Gelot, MD

We should ask AMA CPT board to come up with a CPT code for work/time required to obtain a prior authorization for a procedure and/or medication. This will help us bill insurance company and/or patients for our time and expertise.
I also believe that all insurance companies should PAY US at least $1.00 per claim for filing claims electronically.

Third Party Payor

December 6th, 2007 by Helen Colevins

Mark R. Cervi, MD Says:
I have to feverishly agree with Dr Peterson’s comments regarding charging the third-party payors for the amount of time spent doing prior authorizations on CT/MRI/Angios,etc. I have had to hire a part-time staff person just to help handle these tasks and to keep patient flow without the proverbial “check-out” stenosis! Why have we let the insurance companies become the tail wagging the dog????

Authorization continued:

November 14th, 2007 by Helen Colevins

comment to earlier post,

Linda S. Winegardner, MD |
Dr. Peterson,

We view it as increasing the complexity and time required for care (e.g. a bump up on the E&M?). Our doctor is directly involved in getting the approval and thus directly involved in the patient care. Result is fewer patient encounters - less productivity - less revenue = go out of business! There should be an increase in reimbursement for this additional administrative requirement. If we are busy and don’t have time for the authorization process, we send the patient to an appropriate specialist (ortho/GI). Costs insurance more but that is a consequence of the insurance company policy. We have many cases where this insurance company policy drives up cost for all and reduces the quality of care.

Vince Winegardner
Practice Manager

Are We or Are We Not Working Together?

November 7th, 2007 by Helen Colevins

The Physician / PA Team and
A Collaborative Relationship Between the NCMS and the NCAPA:
Are We or Are We Not Working Together?
By James E. Hill, Jr., P.A.-C., M.Ed.

From the NCAPA Newsletter 

During the year I served as President of the NCAPA from 1979-80, one of the professional groups I reached out to was the NC Medical Society (NCMS). We had asked several influential NCMS physician members to be “advisors” to our organization and, in return, the NCMS allowed me to serve as a PA “advisor” to them, attending their annual meeting and being part of their Allied Health Committee. It was the first time the NCMS formally recognized our professional organization.

Over time incremental improvements occurred. Under Bob Seligson’s reign as CEO and Executive VP of the NCMS and with PA Debbie Hauser’s involvement, the NCMS established a PA Section which gave us representation to the House of Delegates, to the officers and staff and, essentially, to all the benefits of the NCMS. And, here’s the most important benefit—-PAs are MEMBERS of the NCMS. There are only a handful of state medical societies which provide membership to PAs. Bob Seligson and the NCMS Board of Directors are fully supportive of our profession. From my perspective, we would be professionally short-sighted not to fully embrace and nurture that relationship.

It took me a while to get back on track with the NCMS and I finally joined as a PA member in the mid 90’s. Several years after that I decided to serve more completely and was elected Chair of the PA Section. Our small section then initiated a teen suicide prevention program, receiving support from some teen suicide prevention advocacy groups, from the NCMS staff and from the NCAPA officers and Board of Directors. For the first time, it was our PA Section which offered a CME program at the NCMS Annual Meeting through this teen suicide prevention project. History was made again when Justine Strand was elected as the first PA President of the NCMS Foundation Board. This past year the NCMS approved PAs to be part of their Legislative “Doctor of the Day” program and we (the PA Section) took part in their “White Coat Wednesday” day at the NC Legislature. More recently, the NCMS then sustained their history of supporting PAs by asking me to become the second PA on the NCMS Foundation Board.

With all the benefits we have through a NCMS collaborative relationship, I’ve been surprised at the small percentage of PAs who have chosen to be members of the NCMS compared to the NCAPA. Having been a member of both the NCAPA and the NCMS and having served each organization, it seems to me that being a member of both professional groups is actually a way for us to potentate our influence and participation in the health care arena. In fact, I believe that it is just as important to support the NCMS as it is to support the NCAPA. We will be better equipped to grow in the future health care environment if we serve the PA profession as well as the medical profession. One of the reasons the climate for PA professional growth in North Carolina remains so positive is because the NCAPA and PAs have been supported by the NCMS (and the NC Medical Board). We serve one master—patients—and it is not a choice about serving one group over another. We are professionals in our own right but we continue to work with physicians in a supervisory / collaborative role. We do not exist and do not work without them.

In May 2007 a meeting took place in Raleigh between Mike Borden and Jeff Katz representing the NCAPA, several NCMS staff and myself. Our goal was to cultivate a closer affiliation between the NCMS and NCAPA, especially the PA components. With the NCMS PA Section looking to develop a new project targeting obesity, it seemed fitting that the NCAPA would be part of this public health initiative. In addition, we encouraged a meeting between Mike Borden and Bob Seligson as representatives of each of our respective groups. That has taken place and I am confident a more inclusive bond will develop from their discussions.

What do I believe is necessary to maximize our potential growth and insure success? Personally, I’d like to see every NCAPA member also be a NCMS member. How can we more easily encourage that? One way would be to establish a joint NCAPA / NCMS membership, giving a discount for that joint membership. Being a member of the NCAPA and the NCMS means that we believe in the future of physician assistants and we believe in the collaborative relationship of physicians and PAs.  While there are probably going to be dissenting opinions, among you and among the NCAPA officers and Board members, I see this proposal as one where everybody becomes better. What do you think?

pprior approval for ct

October 5th, 2007 by John L. Peterson, MD

Why aren’t we charging the payors for prior approval on ct scans?   This is an expensive time consuming service we are providing for free , why? 

  I’m going to start charging $200 per approval.   If it costs enough they’ll quit.

                John Peterson MD

SPECIAL BULLETIN

October 2nd, 2007 by Helen Colevins

BREAKING NEWS: MEDICAID TAMPER RESISTANT PRESCRIPTION PAD REQUIREMENT DELAYED UNTIL APRIL 1, 2008

President Bush signed newly enacted legislation over the weekend delaying implementation of the Medicaid tamper resistant prescription pad requirement from October 1, 2007 until April 1, 2008. NCMS will provide additional information on our website as soon as received from NC Division of Medical Assistance regarding the tamper resistant prescription pad requirements that will be effective as of that date and thereafter.

Check www.ncmedsoc.org daily for updates and other late-breaking developments.

What is your opinion??

September 25th, 2007 by Helen Colevins

Continuing Medical is required to maintain licensure.  With advances in technology, there are multiple ways practitioners can earn CME credits.  We are surveying NC Medical Society members to determine their preference for participating in CME programming.  The survey is anonymous.  It consists of 15 questions and should take less than 5 minutes to complete.  We would appreciate your input on the topic.

 Please click on the following link below to access the survey:

https://survey.ecu.edu/perseus/se.ashx?s=0B87A65626C79694