Originally posted on Article 8:Antitrust litigation hasn’t disappeared, but rather changed its focus. Instead of targeting the great railroad empires of the late 19th century, today’s antitrust efforts focus on more minute industries, like dentistry. In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments for North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, in which…
The recent strike down of anticompetitive regulation in N.C. dental case opens the door to antitrust litigation against other state Regulatory Agencies such as Medical Boards.
The Federation of State Physician Health Programs has set up a “hidden” system of coercion and control using various methods (policy and moral entrepreneurship, changes in state medical practice acts and administrative procedure, misuse of health law, etc.) to create a system that lacks oversight and regulation. As a power unto themselves they are accountable to no one.
Although originally funded by medical societies and staffed by volunteer doctors in order to help sick colleagues and protect the public, any system can be subverted for profit and power, and these programs have been taken over by groups representing the multi-billion dollar drug and alcohol testing, assessment and treatment industry and become reservoirs of bad medicine and fraud. All manner of abuse can be hidden under a veil of benevolence. Although most are afraid to speak publicly under fear of punishment and retaliation (“swift and certain” consequences, summary suspension) I have herd from many many doctors in multiple states. Their stories are all the same.
In addition to misconduct related to the non-FDA laboratory developed tests (they themselves introduced into the market using a loophole that bypasses FDA approval) there are reports of coercion into unneeded evaluation and treatment at a couple dozen or so “PHP-approved” facilities under threat of loss of licensure.
Reports to a state PHP can be done anonymously with confidentiality guaranteed to the reporter. Any report will result in a meeting with the state PHP and if they feel a licensee is in need of an assessment they require it be done at a “PHP-approved” assessment center.
As non-profit tax exempt corporations, PHPs do not provide clinical assessments. They can only recommend assessments. State Regulatory Agencies (Medical Boards, Nursing Boards, etc.) have accepted the PHPs requirements of limiting assessments to those approved by the PHP. In fact many states mandate assessments to solely “PHP-approved” assessment centers under threat of summary suspension of a professional license.
An Audit of the North Carolina PHP by State Auditor Beth Woods, however, found financial conflicts-of-interest in the use of these predominantly out-of-state assessment facilities to which the N.C. PHP was referring and the state Medical Board was requiring. Woods requested the qualitative indicators and quantitative measures used to “approve” these assessment centers from the N.C. PHP but they were unable to produce any documentation showing any quality indicators or objective criteria existed! The best response they could come up with was “informal” methods and “reputation.” The full audit can be seen here.
Imagine if the FDA gave this reply if asked to provide the criteria used to “approve” medications or medical devices in the “FDA-approval” process!
Making matters even worse, the Medical Director of the N.C. PHP, Dr. Warren Pendergast was serving as President of their national organization, the FSPHP at the time of the audit.
The simple fact is no criteria exist.
A recent class action lawsuit in Eastern Michigan found this same pattern of referral to out-of-state assessment and treatment centers ( Marworth, Talbott, Hazelden. Promises,etc.)
State referrals to “PHP-approved” facilities has become a matter of public policy. Both the American Society of Addiction Medicine and the Federation of State Medical Boards have issued public policy statements stating that only “PHP-approved” centers be utilized by Regulatory Agencies in the assessment and treatment of their licensees. Moreover, these policies specifically exclude “non-PHP-approved facilities and often involve a limited time-frame. No choice, no appeal and no bartering. Do it. Do it now and if you don’t suffer the consequences.
These public policy statements can be seen in the 2011 ASAM “Public Policy Statement on Coordination between Treatment Providers, Professionals Health Programs and Regulatory Agencies” and the 2011 FSMB “updated Policy on Physician Impairment.” Many state Regulatory Agencies have strictly adhered to these policy recommendations.
What this means is that states are mandating evaluations at “PHP-approved” facilities even though there is no documentable or plausible reason for doing so. No measurable criteria exist as to how the list of “approved” facilities were “approved” yet they have “cornered the market,” removed choice and created an imposed monopoly under threat of loss of professional licensure.
In reality no official “PHP-approved” list exists. Neither does any objective published criteria for approving them. At the same time state Regulatory Agencies and Boards are forcing evaluations on licensed professionals at these couple-dozen or so facilities. They are excluding patient autonomy and choice violating the fundamental freedoms of the individual and informed consent.
All semblance of due process has been removed. If a plausible reason existed (i.e. they met some minimum standard of credentialing, quality or patient outcome) for referring to a proscribed list of assessment centers it could be arguably justified. Without such criteria, and in light of the economic and ideological conflicts of interest involved, it is patently unjustifiable.
Even more disturbing is, as Drs. John Knight and J. Wesley Boyd (who collectively have more than 20 years experience as Associate Directors at the Massachusetts PHP, PHS, Inc.) pointed out in their 2012 paper published in the Journal of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, many of these facilities are willing to “tailor” the diagnosis and recommendations of an evaluation to fit the wishes of the PHP. “Tailoring” an assessment and recommendations to anything other than what the true data show is healthcare fraud. It is, in fact, the political abuse of psychiatry.
PHPs started out as “Physicians Health Programs” but many are transitioning to “Professionals Health Programs” to widen the net. For example in Michigan and Florida the state PHP covers all health care practitioners from Acupuncturists to Veterinarians. PHPs have also entered non -healthcare employee assistance programs (EAPs) such as the aviation industry and the grand plan is expansion to non-healthcare professions. They are doing this by claiming remarkable success rates and brandishing themselves as the “gold-standard” of substance abuse treatment. Interestingly, the same individuals claiming how successful PHP programs are are the same individuals profiting from the drug and alcohol testing they introduced. Anyone with any sort of license is at risk.
So whether you cut hair, teach, take care of patients or even drive a car they could be coming after you next and they don’t have to convince you of the validity and reliability of their services–they only need to convince those who regulate your license and, as we have seen, they are very accomplished at persuasion in this department.
And that is why we need more state audits of PHPs and Medical Boards. The starting point is simple. Request from the state PHP and Board a list of “PHP-approved” facilities and the criteria by which they were approved. What should be a simple reply will undoubtedly not be as they will not be able to provide either.