|
Posted: 5.9.09

CSOM Legislative Update - 2009
|
HEALTHCARE BILLS
HB 1344
- the medical malpractice bill was introduced in the House on
April 17th, went into committee and was amended on the 20th and
two days later, died on a third reading vote on the House
floor with the Republicans locked in opposition and the
Democrat’s “dirty dozen” going with them for the kill. This bill
sponsored, by Representative Christine Scanlon (D-Dillon) would
have inflation adjusted the $300,000 non-economic cap for
medical malpractice and required medical malpractice carriers to
file their rates with the Division of Insurance. The bill, as
amended in the House Judiciary committee, required COPIC and all
other Medical Liability carriers to file their rate increases
for approval and included a provision allowing any person to
request a review hearing thereby forcing the carriers to defend
their rate. The CSOM, CAFP, CMS, specialty medical lobby, and
our business friends worked hard to make legislators understand,
the bill even in its amended form, would have grave impacts to
the practices of Colorado physicians. The calls and emails to
Legislators from physicians were the key to killing the bill.
Pat yourselves on the backs folks, this was a hard won fight and
most likely a fight we will see again next session!
Other major issues battled this legislative session, have all
been in the area of Scopes of Practice. The Naturopath
registration bill, HB1175, sponsored by
Representative Kathleen Curry (D- Gunnison) passed the House
only to die in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
This bill regulated the practice of naturopathic medicine and
protected the title of Naturopathic Doctor only for those people
who have a four-year post graduate degree. Naturopathic doctors
would have been authorized to perform a limited set of
treatments and therapies, prohibited from a myriad of “medical
acts” and the performance of treatments and practices that were
considered unsafe or ineffective. The bill contained a provision
that would have authorized a multidisciplinary task force to
determine future qualifications of naturopathic doctors and to
have dialogued on their scope of practice, all of this was to be
reviewed through a lens of evidence backed by quality and peer
reviewed literature. Finally, naturopathic doctors would have
been required to provide disclosures aimed at educating
consumers on the qualifications of a naturopathic doctor, the
differences between a naturopathic doctor and a physician, and
those practices that naturopathic doctors are prohibited from
performing. All this work only to start again at the same point
next year! Let’s see what the Naturopaths do now since their
battle is not with Medicine, but with the “other” naturopaths
who do not have four-year ND degrees!
In response to our lobby and grassroots efforts, the
chiropractors pulled down their amendment that would have
granted them prescriptive authority. They have requested to meet
with medical groups over the course of the summer to express
their “want” and hear our concerns.
The Nurse Practice Act Sunset, SB239,
sponsored by Senator Lois Tochtrop (D-Adams) has passed the
Senate and the House and is on the Governor’s desk for signing.
As a collective voice, medicine worked overtime to assure a
definition of Advance Practice Nursing was included in the Nurse
Practice Act Sunset legislation. Medicine’s position on the NPA
sunset primarily focused on two things; defining Advanced
Practice Nursing to include delegated medical functions and a
mutually acceptable process for safe prescribing.
CSOM monitored several bills dealing with healthcare reform:
HB 1273, “Health Care for All”, known by
most as the “Single Payer” bill sponsored by Representative John
Kefalas (D-Fort Collins). CSOM & CAFP discussed the need for
Patient Centered Medical Homes as the cornerstone of any reform
to our health care system. The opportunity to sing this same
tune arose again in the form of possible testimony and
amendments to HB 1358, “Creating a Health Care System
For Colorado” sponsored by Representative Joe Rice
(D-Denver). This bill would have created a parallel
public/private payer, three tiered system of health care. The
first tier would have been publically sponsored primary and
preventive services, the second tier would have been supported
by mandated individual coverage for acute care services and the
final tier covered catastrophic care as a public benefit. The
bill was supported by the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce
only to be postponed indefinitely at the sponsor’s request.
HB
1204, Priority Preventative Services, sponsored by Representative Tom
Massey (R-Poncha Springs) has made it through the House and
Senate and is on its way to the Governor’s desk. The bill
requires health insurance carriers to allow a co-pay in front of
the deductible for preventative services supported in the A and
B recommendations of the United States Preventative Services
Task Force (USPSTF) for breast and cervical cancer, colorectal
screenings, alcohol and tobacco interventions, pneumococcal and
flu vaccinations, and childhood immunizations. The bill passed
the House with an amendment that will allow fluidity in statute
to require these screenings even as the recommendations from the
USPSTF change over time.
BUDGET
The Joint Budget Committee (JBC), having just finished
preliminary “final” figure setting for the upcoming fiscal year,
received news that the
state had to find an additional $150 million to balance the
current fiscal year and cut or fill a $786 million gap for the
fiscal year starting July 1, 2009. In order to introduce a
balanced budget, the Joint Budget Committee made a motion to cut
Higher Education $300 million and use $500 million in cash funds
from Pinnacol Insurance (Worker’s Compensation Funds). These
were funds available above the statutory reserve Pinnacol is
required to carry. This action set off a fire-storm, splitting
the Higher Education and Business lobby, and culminating in the
Senate sending the state’s budget bill SB 259
back to the Joint Budget Committee for reconsideration (which
was procedurally impossible). The bill was sent back to the
Senate for action as the JBC could not re-write the state’s
budget bill known as the “Long Bill”.
At the crux of the crisis was the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which required states to fulfill
maintenance of effort funding requirements in order to receive
over $700 million in education stimulus dollars. The $300
million hit to Higher Education did not meet this condition.
Consequently the Senate removed the $300 million cut in Higher
Education, sent the House an unbalanced budget, and left the
Governor intervening in the struggle between Higher Education
and Pinnacol Insurance.
Pinnocal promised a lawsuit if the state tried to take their
cash reserves or change their statutory designation and Higher
Education students threatened sit-ins and speak outs. The budget
turned into a melee with the Governor, Republicans and Democrats
going back to the “black list” of cuts leaving Medicaid
physicians experiencing a 4.33% rate cut, tobacco cessation,
cancer, cardiovascular and pulmonary prevention programs
decimated and primary care funding for qualified centers down
$15 million. The health care lobby launched into action and held
a rally protesting the cuts. New revenues from federal stimulus
dollars were found and the budget was sent to the Governor for
signature with only a 2% cut for Medicaid physicians, sadly none
of the money for prevention programs was restored. The state
will wait with trepidation and fear as new revenue estimates are
anticipated in June and September. Are more cuts on the horizon?
Sad to say, but that possibility remains a reality.
The General Assembly must finish all their work by midnight on
Wednesday May 6th, better known as “Sine Die”…
Thanks to all CSOM physicians who called their legislators about
these critical bills!
|
Posted: 4.24.09
Skolnik Act Modifications
Enacted
On March 30th, Gov. Ritter signed HB 1188,
modifying physician disclosures required by the Michael Skolnik Medical
Transparency Act. The Department of Regulatory Agencies, (DORA)
immediately began updating the online disclosure form so that it will
reflect these modifications when they send out license renewal forms
beginning in April, 2009. Medicine’s united front was so effective that
the bill passed unanimously out of every committee and each chamber.
Recognizing the urgency of the changes in the bill, Gov. Ritter signed
it soon after it appeared on his desk. Major changes to the Act include:
Business interests
• Clarifies that the reporting applies only to health care-related
business interests.
• Changes required updates from 30 days after a change in holdings to
annual update.
Employment relationships
• Requires reporting only of contracts worth an annual aggregate of
$5,000 or more.
• Clarifies that the reporting applies to both contracts and employment
• Changes required updates from 30 days after a change in employment
relationship to annual.
Peer review
• Exempts precautionary and administrative suspensions (e.g. when a
physician’s hospital privileges are temporarily suspended because he has
not kept up with patient charts) from reporting.
• Limits look back period to 1990 (initial reporting year to National
Practitioner Data Bank), instead of entire medical career.
Crimes and misdemeanors
• Limits look back period to post licensure, rather than all the way
back to age 18.
Malpractice
• Limits look back period to 1990, rather than entire medical career.
Posted: 10.10.08
New Medical
Transparency Act
Will Impact CSOM
Physicians
Most osteopathic
physicians are probably aware that during the 2007 legislative session,
the Colorado Legislature passed the Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency
Act. This law significantly expands the information about individual
Colorado physicians that will be disclosed to the public on the Colorado
Board of Medical Examiners website. In addition to that disclosure is a
requirement - effective January 1, 2009 - that all physicians applying
for an initial license to practice medicine or reinstating or
reactivating an existing license must provide extensive information, and
in some cases documentation, and must update the BME profile with all
changes in the required information within 30 days of such a change.
Physicians who held an active license prior to January 1, 2008, will be
required to comply with the Act as part of the next license renewal
cycle in May, 2009.
Colorado organized
medicine was actively involved in negotiations on this bill when it was
introduced into the Colorado Legislature. Although it grew out of a
specific Colorado case, it is part of a national movement for increased
transparency regarding physicians and a more general emphasis on
transparency in other areas, including organized medicine’s successful
efforts to pass legislation in Colorado mandating increased transparency
on the part of health plans with regard to contracting and physician
ranking programs. Every effort was made to influence this legislation
and remove the most intrusive elements, resulting in a better bill for
CSOM physicians than would have otherwise been the case.
CSOM sponsored an
informational session presented by COPIC in-house council on the
requirements of the Act in August at the CSOM Annual Meeting in
Breckenridge.
The specific
information required to be disclosed under the Act is:
1.
Name
2.
Aliases
3.
Current address
4.
Telephone number
5.
Information regarding all medical licenses ever held
6.
Current Board Certifications
7.
Practice specialty(ies)
8.
Affiliations with hospitals and health care facilities
9.
Current financial ownership interests in businesses (includes
stock)
10.
Current employment contracts
11.
Public disciplinary actions against a medical license
12.
Agreements and stipulations to temporarily cease medical practice
13.
Involuntary hospital or health care facility privileging actions
14.
Involuntary surrender of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
registration
15.
Criminal convictions or plea arrangements for felonies and crimes
of moral turpitude
16.
Judgments, settlements and arbitration awards for medical
malpractice claims
17.
Refusal by an insurance carrier to issue medical liability
insurance
To locate information on the implementation
process, physicians can visit the BME’s website at
www.dora.state.co.us/medical/physicianprofile.htm.
From this website, physicians can access the Board’s adopted rules and
policies regarding the Act and an electronic profile by which they can
submit their required information. The web based profile contains
instructions for each required reportable element. Physicians who have
questions regarding the profile can contact the BME physician profile
administrator, Tracey Martinez at tracey.martinez@dora.state.co.us or by
calling 303-894-5965. The website also allows CSOM physicians to view
their completed profiles currently accessible in order to understand how
the information will be displayed to the public.
Penalties for
Noncompliance
Enforcement of the
Act is complaint-driven and the BME has not been charged with the
responsibility for monitoring physicians’ self-reported profile
information. The legislation does authorize the Board to issue fines up
to $5,000 and gives them the authority to take disciplinary actions in
cases of noncompliance with the requirement to report updated profile
information and provide required
documentation within 30 days of the action. The Act also prohibits the
BME from renewing the license of a physician who has failed to pay an
imposed fine. More information will be forthcoming as implementation of
the Transparency Act proceeds.
CSOM’s
Response
We want to assure you that we are exploring options to modify some of
the Act’s reporting requirements that we perceive to be burdensome.
There is no question that complying with the Act’s reporting
requirements is time consuming for CSOM physicians and their staffs. At
the same time, we want to reiterate CSOM’s long-standing support for a
high degree of transparency and accountability from all elements of our
healthcare delivery system.
Much of the information required under the Act is already publicly
available and the Act simply enables its collection and publication in
one place. Some of the information, however, has not been publicly
reported in the past. We honor the law’s intent to give patients
important information about physicians’ history and business
arrangements: patients have a right to know if their physicians have
malpractice settlements or judgments, or if they have an ownership stake
in the healthcare facilities to which they refer. The breadth of some of
the reporting required, however, may pose an undue burden without giving
patients truly useful information.
CSOM is engaging in dialogue with the backers of the original bill both
within and outside of the legislature, as well as with the Colorado
Medical Society and the BME, about potential modifications. We will keep
you apprised as we move forward with these discussions.
|