Information provided through Jon Porter at www.healthlicensedefense.com
This information is from the August 23rd and 24th, 2007 Texas Medical Board Meeting in Austin, Texas. The next meeting will be held October 4th and 5th Austin.
We were not permited into the Executive Committee as it went into Executive Session upon our arrival.
DPRC – August 23rd, 2007
Report by Mari Robinson, Director of Enforcement
According to Ms. Robinson, more jurisdictional complaints have been opened in Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) than in the entire history of the Board. However, the Board is also closing 10% fewer cases within the 180 days statutory mandate. Ms. Robinson expressed worry about being able to keep up with the increasing case load.
Licensure should be fine because they have been receiving FTEs every session.
The current Case load is 536 cases. That is 200 more than at the same time last year.
The current amount of ISCs undergone is 414 in FY07. Ms. Robinson believes the board will near 500 total ISCs for the year. It is very interesting to note that 12-14 of the 22 working days a month are spent in ISCs.
Ms. Robinson expressed a degree of worry about the current case load and allocation of the Board’s scarce resources. She proposed an idea which the Board places more resources towards cases “that are more likely to harm the public” such as impairment and standard of care cases. In her plan cases of a more administrative nature need not go all the way to an ISC. Among these less important cases will fall cases that involve only medical records issues. It seems that many cases have been going to ISC when it is really not necessary. Rather than going to an ISC, Ms. Robinson proposed that they can be discussed in a DPRC meeting saving much of the Board’s time. She wanted these cases to be voted on by the complete DPRC and not by specific members preventing Board members with “hot button” issues such as DUIs from kicking cases back to ISC. Her plan is to also find a way to evaluate doctors who are repeat offenders in a more meaningful way. She discussed these new plans further in the full Board meeting.
Advertisement
The Board wants to focus on educating doctors about proper advertising. The Board decided to emphasize advertisement issues for the next 6 months or so.
Full Board Meeting August 23rd and 24th Electronic Medical Records
There was some confusion as to whether or not electronic records that are either burned on to a CD, or emailed still require the same per page fee. The Board sent this to a stakeholder group to look at.
Licensure Fingerprinting
The Board is reinstating its practice of fingerprinting all medical license applicants. The Board has set up a deal with a vendor, Identix, who supposedly has 30 locations in the state of Texas . The system is digital and will only cost $20.40. Doctor’s just need to drop by a vendor location, have their fingerprints scanned and they are done. As this is a digital system, the vendor states the turn around time on the background checks involved with the fingerprints will only take 2-3 days. There was some discussion as to whether in the future all doctors in the state of Texas will be required to get fingerprints on file. This may take the form of requiring all doctors to include fingerprints in their renewals. It took Florida 2 years to fingerprint their doctor population.
Legislative News Bulletin
The Board now releases a bulletin to the legislature. It is a one page document that is short and to the point. This will be a monthly bulletin. 70% of the calls from legislators are on calling on behalf of a licensure applicant. Another 20% call with questions about policies, data, or issues on rural doctors.
Follow Up on 5 day ISC Rule
This rule, which was discussed at the June meeting, states that all materials for an ISC are due 5 business days prior to the ISC. This rule has been in place but not enforced for some time now. Staff was directed to begin enforcing this rule and to send out a letter to all defense attorneys to let them know. These letters were sent out. Hopefully this rule will prevent “one of the key defense practices… to delay delay delay.”
Modifications of Agreed Orders by the Board: 1. Dr. Ward
This doctor was given 10 hours of CME and a $2,500 fine. Dr. Kalafut believes that this case deserved a public reprimand. The patient in this case ended up being a c3, c4 quadriplegic. This means that the patient has no life without ventilator support. The patient had gone in for a herniated disk. The patient deteriorated after the surgery and the hospital was unable to get a hold of Dr. Ward. A public reprimand was added to this order.
2. Dr. Gibson
This doctor prescribed to one patient an average of 18 Hydrocodine per day with no medical records. This doctor also prescribed Methadone in high quantities to a patient for 6 months prior to actually seeing said patient. Somehow this doctor managed to retain all of his prescribing abilities. Board moved to remove prescribing of 2s and 3s and to add a public reprimand.
New Staff
John Langley is the latest addition to the law staff at the Board.
In addition, the staff hired 7 additional employees.
PFD
Defendant: Robert Cuin MD, Richardson Texas
Defendant’s Lawyer: Frank Walker
Judge: Wendy Harvall
This case involved a $42 billing mistake for medical records. Dr. Cuin charged $81 which is the standard for hospitals but $42 for doctors. The patient did not pay this bill. Dr. Cuin did not release the records within 15 days of the request. He did however release the records for free within 2 days of the 2nd request made by the patient. The main issue at stake was the interpretation of a statute that states the Board may not go after someone who has an unwilling or unknown billing error. Subsection A of this statute says that it only pertains to bills for treatment; however this distinction is not made in subsection E. The judge decided that the language was clear and the Board according to this statute could not prosecute this accidental billing error. The Judge suggested dismissal for this case. The Board lawyer believed that it is the duty of the physician to know how much he is supposed to bill for records. The Board overruled the PFD for dismissal. Instead the Board adopted a Final Order proposed by Board Staff.
New Rules:
All new rules proposed by the Board passed on a voice vote with no decision or deliberation.