M.D.S Fight Malpractice Web Site
By Matthew Eisley, The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.
May 29–The N.C. Medical Board wants to post doctors’ malpractice information on its Web site as a public service — a move the state’s private physicians association opposes on the grounds that it could be misleading.
The medical board, a state agency that licenses and regulates doctors and physician assistants, proposes to disclose malpractice payments going back seven years as part of a broader effort to strengthen its protection of patients. The board had been criticized in years past for failing to protect people from troubled doctors.
"In the information age, the age of empowerment, the public demands information about things that affect them," David Henderson, the medical board’s executive director, said in a meeting Wednesday with editors, editorialists, and reporters of The News & Observer. "We’re trying to provide information to the public but at the same time make it as fair as possible to physicians."
The actual payment amounts would not be disclosed, nor information that identified patients. Doctors could add comments explaining what happened.
The Web site would note that malpractice payments don’t always suggest negligence. And it would note that some specialities, such as obstetrics and neurosurgery, tend to draw more lawsuits than other fields.
The site would also state whether the medical board had publicly disciplined the doctor, giving an indication of whether the malpractice payment was for negligence.
If the board approves the rule after a public hearing June 30, then by next year, North Carolina could become the 23rd state to disclose all medical malpractice payments.
The board estimates that about 4 percent of North Carolina’s doctors would be affected — or about 900 out of 22,000 doctors who practice here, most of them with only one payment.
The board’s proposal springs from a new state law — which the board requested — that requires it to collect and publish doctors’ medical malpractice histories. The law left it to the board to decide what to disclose.
Physicians fight rule
The N.C. Medical Society, a private association that represents about 11,000 of the state’s doctors, backed the bill but opposes the proposed rule, saying it’s unfair and goes too far.
The medical board should disclose only payments going forward, because it’s not fair to disclose past settlements that doctors might not have agreed to if they had known they would become public, the medical society argues.
And payments should be disclosed only in cases where the medical board finds that the doctor provided substandard care, the society argues. Sometimes doctors settle nuisance lawsuits because they’re not worth fighting, the group says.
"In these litigious times, sometimes lawsuits are filed for no good reason, but physicians decide to settle them for business reasons," said Bob Seligson, the society’s executive vice president.
Seligson said his organization supports public transparency, but in proper, helpful context.
"If substandard care has been identified, we have no problem with it being reported," he said. "But if the doctor didn’t perform substandard care, how is a person looking at the Web site going to know that? It should address the intent of why you’re doing it — you don’t want to mislead the public."
The medical society has created an electronic template on its Web page that allows doctors to send an e-mail to the medical board in a few quick mouse clicks. As a result, hundreds of doctors have registered their disapproval.
But the medical board hasn’t heard much from ordinary people — and would like to by June 30.
"We need to hear from the public on this," said Thom Mansfield, the board’s legal director. "We’re doing this for the public, because they’re our constituency. The board believes that consumers in North Carolina are entitled to as much information as possible — and we trust them to sort it out."
The medical board already posts public disciplinary action on its Web site.
Under the new policy, the additional public information would include any suspension or revocation of doctors’ hospital practice privileges, any felony conviction and some misdemeanors, and any disciplinary order by other regulatory boards or agencies.
Lawyers like it
Dick Taylor, chief executive of the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, said he finds the medical society’s opposition distressing. Similar disclosure in other states has helped protect patients without hurting doctors, he said.
"Medical consumers need information about the doctors they seek care from," Taylor said. "We shouldn’t have the doctors’ political arm frustrate that. We believe it’s the right time for the medical board to take public-protective positions and show its independence from the medical society."
Henderson, the head of the medical board, said his agency is evolving from one that was often accused in times past of protecting bad doctors to one at the forefront of public transparency.
He particularly cited the case of Dr. Richard Greenberg, a Charlotte neurosurgeon who was blind in one eye and colorblind. As The News & Observer first reported in 2005, the board had granted Greenberg a full and unrestricted license despite a history of malpractice verdicts against him in Arizona. After public outcry, the board stripped Greenberg of the right to perform surgery in North Carolina.
"The board and the staff are providing a more rigorous review than in years past," Henderson said. "The public needs lots of information. We’ve been receptive to change, and we realize that our primary responsibility is to the public."
matthew.eisley@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-4538
—–
To see more of The News & Observer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.newsobserver.com.
Copyright (c) 2008, The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.