|
by Richard Willner, CEO
The Center for Peer Review Justice
Regarding "Suspended Physician's Hearing Put
on Hold" (AMNews ): The concept of a patent's alleged "imminent
danger" coupled with legal immunities guaranteed by the federal
Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 ( "HCQIA") and
similar state laws, followed by the Courts' reluctance it second
guess physicians' "professional" opinions, can lead to
terrifying results for the physician under fire. Both medical
institutions ( e.g. hospitals) and state medical boards can play
the "summary suspension" trump card on a hapless victim without
fear of significant legal liability or effective judicial
review. The physician being so attacked has little recourse, and
he or she may suffer terrible and irreparable monetary loss,
even if demonstrably "not guilty". Suppose, for example, a hospital and/or members of its staff
want to get rid of a "difficult" doctor, or one who is just too
successful (too competitive). Clandestine collection of numerous
"questionable" cases, sometimes spanning a number of years (as
in the case of Dr Gil Mileikowsky detailed in the AMNews story)
can be performed as a "quality assurance" function and the
physician's credential's summarily suspended "pending due
process hearings" which take literally months or even years.
During that time, the physician is forced to use other
facilities, if available, or begin the (long) application
process to move to a different facility. Remember, however, that
their other hospitals or clinics ( and other states) must be
informed of the summary suspension at the index institution,
often precluding the practitioner's ability to practice
anywhere. After all, a summary suspension only occurs if the
doctor is thought to be "dangerous" to patients. This is
especially damaging to a surgeon, ob-gyn, or other practitioner
who is dependent upon hospitals for practice. And if the doctor
does NOT inform other institutions of the suspension, that in
itself is grounds for denial, suspension or expulsion from a
medical staff. Also note that any suspension which lasts longer
than 30 days is reportable to the National Practitioner Data
Bank ("NPDB"), The snowball effect is incredible! Another scenario: A "good ole boy" clique or a hospital
administrator takes offense at a target doctor and sends a few
select anonymous complaints to the state medical board. Perhaps
someone also had a chat with a buddy on the board itself (with
no discernible paper trail, though). If the board can be
convinced that the doctor is enough of a threat to someone, or
that he or she can be made to LOOK like a threat, at least on
paper, the upshot might be summary suspension of the victim's
license, pending "investigation and due process hearings" which,
again, takes months. In the meantime, the physician is without a
license - i.e. without a means to earn a living. Often, the only
way to avoid bankruptcy and closure of a practice is to plea
bargain with the medical board, in effect pleading "guilty" to
some aspect of the charges (called a "consent order" in some
states). The physician is then under the magnifying glass of the
board for the rest of his or her medical career, an entry is
made into the National Practitioner Data Bank ( "NPDB" or "Data
Bank"), and all future dealings with hospitals or other entities
are shrouded in the taint of a data bank entry and an action
against the license by a medical board. These days, you cannot
even easily run to another state. And since it is a consent
order, it is VOLUNTARY. When you gripe about it to your friends
or colleagues, they remind you : "Well, didn't you sign that
thing voluntarily?" Wrong -doing is basically admitted. And
admitted wrong-doers are not the objects of much sympathy. What recourse does the victim physicians have? If you think you
are right, stand and fight. Then you pay for lawyers, your
practice ( i.e. income) declines, and your reputation0n suffers.
In fact, if one fights TOO hard, and alleges that the
allegations are spurious and defamatory, a physician runs the
risk of "offending" the original accusers and their friends.
After all, they are acting in "good faith", aren't they? Well,
maybe yes, maybe no. In Dr Gil Mileikowsky's case, dredging up
10 year old incidents to make the case for "imminent" patient
danger seems a bit suspicious. AMNews has previously reported on
a case from New Orleans wherein one or more of the committee
doctors acting in "good faith" apparently purposefully lied or
hid important information during the administrative process. In any case, it is clear that this type of action is a very
suitable weapon for professional assassination. And if the
assassins are "caught"? They hide behind the Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986 ( "HCQIA")and claim peer review
immunity. The mantra is: "Well we were just concerned about the
safety of the patients. We're sorry we got the facts wrong. We
really meant well..." In such a situation, unless the victim
really has a believable "smoking gun", the perpetrators get off
with no fine or penalty, and the victim physician, who many have
lost months or years of practice, not to mention attorney fees
and other costs, simply gets to go back to work with a bloodied
and battered reputation. In court, the judge will defer to the
doctors. After all, HE did not attend medical school, THEY did.
If they were scared for patient safety, well, they are
professionals and we should trust them. The court will not
substitute its judgment for the judgment of the medical
professionals. And doctors ARE supposed to police themselves,
aren't they? But, hey! Are these scenarios common? After all, we ARE
professionals. How often does assassination by peer review
actually occur? The reader is directed to the Center for Peer
Review Justice (
www.PeerReview.org ) and other organizations to
read about hundreds of hair-raising stories of physicians and
surgeons who have had their reputations and livelihoods
destroyed by Physician Peer Review Fraud ( Sham Peer Review),
done by some of our more unscrupulous colleagues. One of the
best defenses against winding up a victim like Dr Gil
Mileikowsky is to first be aware of the magnitude of this
problem and the danger that this could happen to you! The next
step: Make good friends with the Center for Peer Review Justice
and their independent lawyers who know HCQIA and Healthcare law. The AMA News article that I referenced was written on June 18,
2001. Today is September 7, 2011, ten (10) years later.
Physician Peer Review Fraud (Sham Peer Review) has become far
more popular and far more destructive to a doctor's career!
This is America!! Why no Justice for Physicians and Surgeons?
|