|
What's a Consumer Advocate Anyway? 2002 has not been a good economic year for physicians. The 5.4% reduction in reimbursement from Medicare (mirrored by many insurers) combined with rising overhead has put the squeeze on medical practice. Rising malpractice rates combined with a managed increase in coverage to obtain the "free" second layer help narrow the gap between gross income and expenses, i.e., the physician's income. As these stresses increase, frustration with organized medicine increases. The question, "How did they allow this to happen?" put the blame for tough times on local, state and national medical societies and raises the more important question, "What is the current role of organized medicine in contemporary medical practice?" Gone are the days when membership in the county medical society was a requirement for hospital privileges and a necessity for practicing in a community. Our county society has an active Peer Review Committee and Board of Censors that deal with patient (consumer) complaints and issues of professional responsibility. In reality, we often preach to the choir, since the majority of our members are decent practitioners who occasionally encounter difficult situations or issues. Gone also are the days of camaraderie, where membership in the medical society was vehicle for a new physician to become known to colleagues. Most referrals are made either to physicians known to the referring physician from hospital medical staffs or to physicians chosen from a directory as required by managed care companies. Do legislative and regulatory failures make medical societies irrelevant? Obviously, I don't think so. As physicians we compete for a scarce resource, money, with various other constituencies. On the national level, we compete with farmers, displaced workers, the poor and other groups who want a greater share of federal funds. Although we did reasonably well with the sustainable growth target methodology for Medicare reimbursement over the last few years, when the economy turned, we were harmed by the very formula under which we previously did well. Clearly a national voice is necessary to lobby at the federal level to protect physicians economic interests. At the state level, we achieved a renewal, on a more "permanent" basis, of the second layer of malpractice insurance. Of course, the deal included an increase of basic coverage required to obtain the second level. An increase of 33% in the base and second layer of coverage clearly benefits the trial lawyers, another constituency seeking that scarce resource, "money." Not to be outdone by other petitioners, we seek regulatory relief from higher malpractice rates rather than accepting an actuarially appropriate premium for the coverage we require. Our state society was there pushing for the second layer and relief from the increased premiums. Only true tort reform can give meaningful relief and our elected officials seem to have no appetite for taking on this difficult issue.Locally, our county society and Academy work with our Commissioner and Department of Health on a number of projects. We are a vital link in the communication between government and physicians. Why have we failed to achieve our goals? We are up against formidable opponents competing for the same resource. Although it may not be realistic to expect a reversal of the Medicare reduction for 2002, we need a national voice to have input as the new reimbursement formula is developed. Tort reform has powerful enemies. The trial lawyers are powerful and give money, so do farmers, steel manufacturers, etc. So what can we do to become more successful? First, we need a better message. In a recent Crain's HealthCare Daily report it was noted that "consumer advocates" (read good people) have determined that a cap on pain and suffering would be unfair to the elderly who get very little when strict economic loss is the only recovery available. We are no longer fighting trial lawyers, we are now against the old, ill and frail. It was also noted that access in New York State is not a problem since we have one of the highest number of physicians per capita in the United States (read the doctors are lying to us). We need to make our message more credibly patient centric and for this we need very sophisticated public relations assistance. We also need people. Numbers count. When groups representing 1,000 people vs. 100,000 people vs. 1,000,000 million people speak, you can bet who will be heard best and loudest. To increase our influence we need more membership and we need to ally ourselves with other like-minded organizations in the community. We need more and stronger relationships of this type. And finally, to paraphrase Flip Wilson, for this project to run, its going to take money! Money for PACs, and for public relations firms and programs. Again, in any coalition, other than the United Nations, the larger the contribution, the greater the voice in policy and direction. Some of this increase in funds available for our cause will come with increased membership. Some must come from voluntary contributions to our PAC. It is hard to imagine a worse time to increase spending than when revenue is down and expenses are up, but failing to act will intensify the downward spiral. In summary, physicians are under extraordinary stress. Organized medicine has responded, with some measure of success and some significant failures. We do have established credibility on the local, state and national level. We need the membership, funds and expertise to leverage this credibility and to become more successful in battling for limited resources and relief.
Daniel J. Nicoll, MD
A new legal analysis makes a compelling case for the Bush Administration to work with Congress to fix the Medicare payment problem. The AMA, working with a broad coalition of medical professionals released a legal analysis clearly showing that costly government errors now hurting the Medicare program can be legally corrected by the Bush Administration. "Congress and the Administration must work together to fix a growing Medicare payment problem that is threatening access for America's seniors," said Timothy T. Flaherty, MD, AMA Chair. The Administration admits that errors were made in 1998 and 1999, including underestimating the gross domestic product (GDP) and leaving out the cost of medical care for one million people. In addition, the physician spending pool currently included outpatient drugs, the cost of which is growing faster than actual physician services. By fixing these two terms, the administration could restore about $62 billion to funding for Medicare services and help avert a series of sharp Medicare cuts. Physicians are urged to learn more and contact both their Congressional representatives and the Bush Administration by logging onto the AMA web site at www.ama-assn.org/grassroots, or by calling 1-800-833-6354.
Legislation (A.11330) introduced by Assemblyman Richard Gottfried to address concerns raised by attendees of an Assembly hearing on physicians held earlier this year, was reported from the Assembly Health Committee to the Assembly codes Committee. Among other things, the bill would establish a statute of limitations for OPMC proceedings; increase the evidentiary burden of proof to a clear and convincing standard; establish additional due process protections for physicians under investigation; require the proffering of exculpatory evidence; and protect against the disclosure of certain medical records when the patient is the licensee under investigation. The bill would also require the appointment of Board members to investigation and hearing committees on a rotating basis and require an investigation/hearing committee to be composed of 1 physician, 1 physicians' assistant, and 1 lay person if a physicians' assistant is under investigation. Lastly, the bill would appear to expand upon the type of evidence that may be introduced during a hearing to include evidence regarding alternative medical practice. The Assembly Codes Committee is slated to consider the measure soon. MSSNY continues its review of this comprehensive measure and has not yet taken a position on the bill.
In news related to childhood vaccination, the FDA has approved Aventis Pasteur's new formulation of a vaccine that protects children against diptheria, tetanus and pertussis. Daptacel, is approved for use for the first four doses of the childhood immunization series that protects against the illness.Daptacel'a approval may "ease serious shortages," as doctors started rationing the older version of the vaccine more than a year ago when two manufacturers stopped production, leaving Aventis Pasteur as the only supplier of the DPT vaccine.
Mark Cappola, Executive Director In the new world of post 9/11, the New York State Department of Health has been calling for volunteer physicians to "enlist" in a panel of physicians from across the state that would be mobilized in the event of another disaster or attack with possibly biological weapons. Recently, however, questions have begun to surface regarding a physician's liability for service performed under the auspices of this "panel" and questions regarding liability in general when a physician responds to medical emergency as a "Good Samaritan." Most physicians believe that they are immune from suit when acting in a "good samaritan" role. However, while they may be insulated from liability for damages, they are not insulated from a law suit. And if sued, they would have to defend themselves. According to New York State Education Law 6527, Section 2, "...any licensed physician who voluntarily and without the expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency, outside a hospital, doctor's office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid or emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such physician..." As I read this law again and again, a number of holes appear which any trial lawyer could chase an ambulance through:
Obviously, while we like to believe that common sense would prevail in a time of crisis, memories of compassionate and heroic care fade into distant memories as time passes. Because there are so many questions, the Medical Society is working on a panel presentation for the Fall to discuss physician liability in responding to a disaster. Representatives from government, a medical liability carrier, a defense attorney, and a court judge have been contacted and asked to participate in this presentation. In the meantime, it is strongly recommended that you review your medical liability insurance policy for coverage under voluntary and/or "good samaritan" situations to determine not only coverage in the event of liability but also coverage for the cost of defense in any action that could be taken against you. If you have any questions, you should contact your carrier.
On May 16th, the Legislature passed a $89.6 billion state budget for 2002-03, which increases spending about 6 percent despite a $6.8 billion revenue shortfall. The only significant increase in spending was to school aid, which was increased by $430 million over last year's spending. A 3 percent cost of living adjustment was added for a number of non-supervisory, direct care, health care providers that were excluded in the Health Care Workforce Recruitment legislation passed in January, 2002. Included are home health care, hospice, private duty nursing, early intervention and AIDS adult care. Further, $2.3 billion was provided for AIDS and HIV programs (including $110 million for the AIDS Institute), $1 billion for Child Health Plus, $2 million for a Quality Improvement Program for Adult Homes, $458 million for the EPIC program and $441 million for Family Health Plus. Finally, the Medical Society secured stable funding ($990,000) for the Committee for Physicians' Health and two additional allocations of $100,000 each to continue its HIV Peer Education Program.
Various members of the Fair Insurance Today (FIT) coalition, including MSSNY, met with the staff of key members of the Senate Insurance Committee recently to ask that mental health parity legislation to be passed this year. Earlier this year, the Assembly passed legislation (A.4506/S.5381) which provides insurance parity for mental health and chemical and substance abuse services. Currently, there are two bills that the FIT coalition supports (S.4209 and S.5381) which would provide mental health and substance abuse insurance parity. Senate Mental Health Committee Chair Thomas Libous is currently working with the coalition to move the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The first meeting of the New York State Department of Health Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee is scheduled for June 6. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss implementation of the new law, effective October 1, 2002 enacted in January requiring the use of generic drugs for Medicaid patients in lieu of brand name drugs, if such drug has been determined to be therapeutically equivalent (DOH has interpreted this to mean an "A-rated" therapeutic and generic equivalent approved by the FDA). In particular, the committee will be seeking input regarding its proposed process for how a person or entity may request an exemption from this new rule for a particular brand name drug that has a generic equivalent. For example, the draft guidelines ask the person or entity seeking the exemption to "provide a statistically valid study which indicates that the generic has been proven to be less effective than the brand, reported untoward outcomes, implications of adverse side effects, and potential impact on a recipient within a special population." Requests for exemption of specific drugs will not be discussed at this meeting , but at future meetings. It should also be noted that, if a physician wishes to prescribe to a Medicaid patient a brand name drug with a generic equivalent, that has not been exempted, the physician will be able to request authorization from DOH. MSSNY has and will continue to request that the process be a simple one. DOH has sought comments on these draft guidelines from MSSNY, who in turn, has sought comments on these draft guidelines from its members of the MSSNY Medicaid, Health Systems Delivery and Interspecialty Committees. Other physicians who wish to view and comment on the draft guidelines for requesting an exemption, or who have questions or comments regarding this new program may call Moe Auster in MSSNY's Governmental Affairs Division at 518-465-8085 or e-mail to mauster@mssny.org.
An eleventh hour sneak attack by the Trail Bar to secure a repeal of the attorney contingency fee limitations, by inserting language to effectuate the repeal in the Education budget package, was narrowly averted by efforts waged by your medical society, several specialty and county societies, the Healthcare Association of New York State (HANYS) and the business community. This is the second time this year that the Trial Bar has tried to have repeal language inserted at the last minute in a significant piece of unrelated legislation under consideration. As reported in Capital Update an January 18, 2002, the last occasion was on January 15th when they tried to have the repeal included as part of the Healthcare Worker Retention and Retraining Bill. A repeal of the contingency fee limitations would have the impact of increasing medical liability premiums by over 10%. We believe another similar effort will be attempted before the regular session ends on or around June 20.
The Medical Society of the State of New York is attempting to aggregate data on the number of physicians under the age of 55 who are leaving the state; retiring from practice; or limiting their practices. Any physicians who would like to provide this information to us so that we may forward it to the MSSNY, is asked to send us that information in writing along with data regarding the number of years in practice, the practice location, and the primary reason(s) for your decisions.
Thank you for your participation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|