If the Medical Board of California has its manner, you could possibly be handled by a physician wrestling with substance abuse and by no means realize it.
Meeting Invoice 408 would maintain particulars about addicted docs beneath wraps so long as these docs voluntarily enter a brand new, confidential diversion program that the invoice would enable the Medical Board to create.
That’s in stark distinction to what occurs now: Drug-abusing docs are disciplined in proceedings which are made public. This method got here into being a number of years in the past after the Medical Board’s final confidential diversion system was deemed an utter failure and sufferers had been harmed by the hands of struggling docs.
What might be the justification for this about-face?
Getting assist
“When our physicians struggle with substance use disorders, it is in the best interest of both patients and physicians to support them in seeking out help,” Assemblymember Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, mentioned in an evaluation of the invoice he has authored.
The invoice, he added, “builds off California’s longstanding efforts to destigmatize seeking treatment for substance use disorders…. Today, physicians struggling with substance use disorders can feel pressure to hide their condition and often never get the help they need. The creation of this program will help healthcare providers get the care they need, which will better protect patients in the end.”
The invoice is essentially about affected person security, Berman mentioned.
“(A)ll physicians deserve to recover and move forward with renewed resiliency and establishing a program would enable (the Medical Board of California) to prevent patient harm by connecting impaired or at-risk physicians with treatment before issues arise,” based on the evaluation.
Docs and different healthcare professionals are sometimes hesitant to hunt assist due to stigma, confidentiality issues and fears that they’ll break their careers, supporters argue. This reluctance can result in “untreated or inadequately addressed conditions.”
The Medical Board’s mission is to guard shoppers “and, too often, we first learn about a dangerous physician after their patient has been hurt,” mentioned its assertion of assist.
“This legislation takes a proactive approach to prevent patient harm by providing a confidential pathway for physicians and other providers to seek care and treatment early, before they become unsafe to practice medicine.”
Avoiding accountability
Ha! reply client advocates, who couldn’t disagree extra vehemently.
“The bill would allow doctors to seek treatment to avoid discipline even if they were impaired on the job,” mentioned the group in Shopper Watchdog in opposition.
“For example: A San Francisco doctor suspected of stealing drugs from her hospital was recently arrested after she was found passed out in an operating room shortly after she was scheduled to participate in a toddler’s surgery. Under AB 408, the Board could send that doctor into diversion instead of the disciplinary investigation, treatment oversight and consequences for relapse that are all mandatory under current law. The bill does not require reporting of a positive drug test to the Board, so the doctor could continue treating patients while keeping diversion program violations secret and place patients in harm’s way.”
One other opponent of AB 408, the Shopper Safety Coverage Middle on the College of San Diego College of Legislation, takes a extra {dollars} and cents method.
“In light of the vacant staff positions and current budget concerns, it is a mystery how the Board will have dedicated staff to oversee this program,” it mentioned.
“Without proper oversight, this program fails to address the previous program failures that led to catastrophic patient harm.”
The Medical Board’s consideration and assets could be higher targeted on transparency, accountability and well timed enforcement enhancements to make sure significant client safety, the Middle mentioned.
The Shopper Attorneys of California factors out that AB 408 does embody two “important and commendable provisions:” It retains present disclosure necessities for docs who enter this system after allegations of affected person hurt or misconduct, and it mandates reporting of docs believed to have a situation impacting their potential to observe safely.
“These are steps in the right direction, but they do not outweigh the risks created by the lack of enforcement clarity and the rollback of uniform standards,” the group mentioned.
In a sobering evaluation, a Senate evaluation states merely, “Patient and public protection is lacking.”
This invoice made it throughout the Meeting and is now into consideration within the Senate. Have ideas to share along with your legislators? Learn the way to contact them at https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.
