Clark County Medical Society

County Line

Newsletter 74     March 06

 

Contents

 

President’s Message

Malpractice Filings Against Health Care Providers, Jan 2001 – Jan 2006

Member News

CEO Article

Nominating Committee’s Slate of Candidates 2006-07

MedPac 2006

Heroism

Clark County Health District Report

Alliance Message

Nevada State Medical Association’s 102nd Annual Meeting and Scientific Session

Classified Ads

CME Calendar

Clark County Health District Disease Statistics – January 2006

County Line Advertisers

 

 

Top

 

President’s Message

By Ron Kline, MD, 2005-2006 CCMS President

 

 

The Academic Medical Center, UNSOM and Touro

 

Last Spring, just before my term of office began, Mayor Oscar Goodman unveiled plans for a government subsidized University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).  It was the talk of the medical community.  The RJ was full of articles telling us how UPMC surgeons would bring cutting edge medical care to our community, and how they would train our local physicians in the ways of lofty Pittsburgh.

 

The reasons that a metropolitan area the size of Las Vegas would even consider bringing in an outside institution were glaringly obvious to those of us in the medical community.  The University of Nevada School of Medicine (UNSOM) was so weak an institution, and had so little presence in the most populous portion of the state, that the mayor saw little choice but to bring in an outside institution.  Many years of trying to work with UNSOM had so embittered the mayor that he did not even bother to talk to them before he announced his plans.

 

UPMC was a lively topic of our board meetings in the summer and fall of last year.  Clearly, the fact that UNSOM was under the authority of the President of UNR was a significant problem, impairing its development in southern Nevada (where 70% of the population of the state lives).  As a board, we voted to endorse an independent president of health sciences, who would oversee all the health education and medical research programs in the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), to remedy the problem.  This resolution received a great deal of attention.  It was published on the front page of the RJ (above the fold) with the headline "Unified Approach Sought."  It was, by report, endorsed by the faculty of UNSOM at its faculty retreat last year and to my surprise, supported by two UNSOM basic science chairmen at UNR who I spoke with, who told me that it was the only way that the two ends of the state would ever work well together in the health sciences.  The Chancellor's office contacted me to obtain a copy of the exact wording, and at an informal meeting in my home several weeks ago with legislators, regents, and physicians; this solution was universally endorsed as a critical step in moving UNSOM forward.

 

Even though activity may not seem apparent to those not involved in the conversations, active discussions are taking place at multiple levels.  Legislators are talking about an Academic Medical Center (AMC) in the Senate and Assembly Interim Health committees and the Board of Regents has formed a committee, along with an advisory body that I will chair, to review the biomedical research and education programs of the NSHE and to recommend ways in which these programs can be improved.

 

A consultant hired by UNSOM is making the rounds.  He has discussed an AMC with city officials and hospital executives, but curiously, few if any physicians.  Speaking with community physicians was clearly an afterthought for UNSOM and its consultant, since they did not schedule any meetings with us until after they were told by multiple people they interviewed that they should.  This was reinforced when I finally received an email from the consultant asking me to meet with him.  The attached introductory letter had a proposed list of dates that had already passed!  He then cancelled his meeting with me without bothering to reschedule.  Only when I asked about our meeting did he agree to a phone interview.  Talk about no respect! 

The work of this consultant is still in progress, but I can tell you that Chancellor Jim Rogers told the UNR President Search Committee that the preliminary report of the consultant indicates that UNSOM is 35 years behind its comparable medical schools in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico (they needed a consultant to tell them that?).  You can make excuses when comparing us to Utah and Arizona since these states are wealthier than Nevada, but New Mexico! 

 

One of the physicians actively involved in these discussions has pointed out that it is not that the leadership of UNSOM either likes or dislikes the medical community in Las Vegas, but more that it views us as irrelevant to the discussions of an AMC.  In their view, we are irrelevant because we do not have the ability to contribute millions of dollars to a building fund and we do not control hospitals that might serve as a focal point for residency programs.  The assumption is that like sheep, we will simply support whatever the higher ups at UNSOM think is right for our community.

 

TALK ABOUT OVERPLAYING YOUR HAND!

 

Most UNSOM residency programs could not meet their accreditation requirements were it not for the unpaid clinical faculty that makes their time available to teach students and residents.  If you think I am exaggerating, go to http://meded2.med.unr.edu/electives and view the electives available to medical students in your field of specialty.  The vast majority are provided by community physicians volunteering their time to work with UNSOM students and residents.  This is the same medical school that views us as irrelevant to the discussion about an AMC.  I guess in their minds, they will hire all of the faculty in all of the specialties of medicine, making us superfluous.  I hope they have shared those funding expectations with the legislature!

We need to remember this moment if and when a UNSOM sponsored AMC is ever built and the leadership that once thought us irrelevant comes to us encouraging us to refer our patients to their faculty and to place our patients in their hospital.  As I recently pointed out to some regents that I have spoken with, physicians may not be terribly relevant when it comes to contributing money for construction funds and providing the physical location for residency programs, but we are critical to the successful functioning of a hospital after it is built and the education of those residents once they have a place to see patients.  We are the ones who decide where our patients are treated.  We are the ones who, in large part, educate those medical students and residents. This brings me to the next part of my column. 

 

While a great deal of attention has been focused on UNSOM, and our continued frustration with a school that has taken us for granted for thirty years, a new medical school has opened its doors in Clark County.  The Touro University School of Osteopathic Medicine began operations here one and a half years ago.  It currently has a freshman class of 102 students, with a planned increase to 125 students in the next freshman class.  This compares to 52 students in the current UNSOM class, with a planned increase to 62 in the next two years.  In addition to its medical school, it also has an advanced degree nursing program, a physician's assistant program and an occupational therapist program.  It will begin sending its third year students into the medical community this fall and is currently in discussions with the Valley Hospital system to begin residency programs.  Dean Mitchell Forman has worked hard to become an active member of our medical community, and has embraced community physicians as a valuable resource for his students.

 

It is time for us to return that embrace and view Touro as an institution worthy of our support. 

 

For thirty years we have complained that UNSOM has not treated southern Nevada as an important part of its mission.  But if we wanted to be involved in medical education, we had no choice.  NOW WE HAVE A CHOICE!  I have always been a great believer in voting with my actions.  I don't believe we should complain about things without endeavoring to change them.  I think that, given a good alternative, we should not continue to support an institution that does not value us as an important partner in its success…unless it's willing to change!  It's time to put up or shut up.

 

None of us can predict what the future holds.  Perhaps with entrenched presidents at both UNR and UNLV no longer holding back the process, an independent president of health sciences is a real possibility.  This would remove the structural impediment that prevents UNSOM from becoming a true statewide institution.  Perhaps after all the "sturm und drang" at UNSOM, it will evolve into a medical school that truly values the community physicians that support it, and includes them in its process of shared governance.  I am hopeful (perhaps I am naïve) that this new Regent's committee and its advisory body, will bring together the disparate voices and interests in the state, allowing us to come together to build an AMC.  If we can accomplish our goal, we will cease to be the only state in the US with a medical school but without an AMC, and join our peers in the rest of the United States (both richer and poorer than us) who believe that medical research, education, and cutting edge clinical programs are valuable to both the quality of life and the economic development of a state.

 

PS: I have struggled for many months debating about whether to publish this column or not.  Various permutations have been on my computer since November.  Each month I have delayed, waiting for a sign from UNSOM indicating change.  It is finally time to say what we all know is true.  Although I am optimistic that the Regent's committee will result in change, hopes for the future cannot change the actions of the past.

 

Top

 

 

Clark County District Court Medical Malpractice Filings

Against Health Care Providers, Jan 2001 – January 2006

 

                        2001     2002    2003    2004    2005    2006

Jan                   39        33        108      61        41        50

Feb                  20        14        98        72        63

Mar                  35        30        169      123      64

Apr                  37        34        111      81        70

May                 37        35        126      65        14

Jun                   27        24        103      90        65

Jul                    19        100      114      45        66

Aug                  54        51        76        67        33

Sep                  20        65        105      79        36

Oct                  37        83        110      59        26

Nov                 38        184      59        78        68

Dec                  9          170      67        47        30

Sum                372      823      1246     867      581

 

 

 

 

Top

 

Member News

Congratulations and Welcome to the Clark County Medical Society New Members –

January 2006

 

  • Imran Ahmed, MD, Oncology/Hematology, 3100 W Charleston Blvd 202, Las Vegas, NV 89102
  • Munira Dudhbhai, MD, OB-Gyn, 1815 E Lake Mead Blvd 314, N Las Vegas, NV 89030
  • Mitchell D Forman, DO, Internal Medicine, 874 American Pacific Dr, Henderson, NV 89074
  • Ara Gueyikian, MD, Internal Medicine, 7500 Bachelors Button Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89131
  • W Tracy Hankins, MD, Plastic Surgery, 5876 S Pecos Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89120
  • Thomas J Hunt, MD, Family Practice, 2410 Fire Mesa St 180, Las Vegas, NV 89128
  • Prasad R Kudalkar, MD, Oncology/Hematology, 3100 W Charleston Blvd 202, Las Vegas, NV 89102
  • Rupesh J Parikh, MD, Oncology/Hematology, 10001 S Eastern Ave 108, Henderson, NV 89052
  • Satish K Sharma, MD, Anesthesiology, 5375 S Ft Apache 101, Las Vegas, NV 89148
  • Robert H Wang, MD, OB-Gyn, 1701 Bearden Dr 202, Las Vegas, NV 89106

 

Applicants to Go Before Credentialing Committee

If you have any pertinent information about the following membership candidates, please contact: 

Clark County Medical Society, 2590 E. Russell Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89120

 

  • Frank J Andriola, MD, Internal Medicine

 

  • Adam A Arita, MD, Anesthesiology

 

  • Victor Y T Chou, MD, Family Practice

 

  • Robert E Hunter, MD, Family Practice

 

  • Xin N Liu, DO,  Orthopaedics

 

  • Sara L Stephenson, DO, OB-Gyn

 

  • James S Tate, MD, General Surgery

 

  • Lisa K Wong, MD, Radiology

 

 

For information on becoming a member of the Clark County Medical Society, call Marlaina Burns at 739-9989.

 

***New Member Special*** $390 New members can join for half price their first year.

 

Top

 

CEO Article

By Weldon (Don) Havins, M.D., Esq., CEO, Special Counsel

 

PROPOSED ETHICS REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

            The Nevada Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) has proposed amending Nevada law governing medical doctors to include a specific set of Ethics regulations.  As well intentioned as they are, this is the paragon of the dicta: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  The regulations are not needed because they are almost all in current Nevada law governing physicians.  The few that are not in Nevada law would create adverse unintended consequences or would be unenforceable if they were enacted into law.  This article will address each of the proposed regulations with the reasons each should not be enacted.  If the NBME Board members feel that additional regulations are necessary to proscribe medical doctors' conduct, they can be added to existing regulations in NAC 630.230 "Prohibited professional conduct".

            The full text of the proposed Ethical Code of Conduct regulations can be viewed and downloaded from the CCMS website:www.clarkcountymedical.org   The statutes and regulations referenced in this article can be read online in the Legislative Counsel Bureau's Law Library website:   www.leg.state.nv.us

            The Nevada State Medical Association (NSMA) took a strong position of opposition to adoption of these ethics regulations at the last NBME Board meeting.  Larry Matheis, Executive Director of NSMA, explained that ethics codes are moral, aspirational guides which appropriately belong within the purview of professional medical (specialty) organizations as a guide to behavior, and are not intended to be adopted as laws.  The Clark County Medical Society (CCMS) supported NSMA's position.  CCMS objected specifically to two of the proposed regulations in Part I of the proposed regulations, the (inappropriate) use of "should" in many of the Part II proposed ethics regulations, and the practical unenforceability of Part III's "Societal Responsibilities" of physicians.

            The proposed ethical regulations were written by Dr. Robert Barnett of Reno, a part-time and long-time employee of the NBME who has rendered years of service to the Board in screening complaints against physicians for the Board's staff.  CCMS' concern about these proposed ethics regulations is in no way intended to demean the excellent service this fine physician has rendered to the NBME, and his good intentions in writing this proposed ethics code regulations.

            The enabling statute authorizing the adoption of a code of ethics is NRS 630.301(9) which provides: "the following acts, among others, constitute grounds for initiating disciplinary action or denying licensure:

            9. The engaging in conduct that brings the medical profession into disrepute, including, without limitation, conduct that violates any provision of a code of ethics adopted by the Board by regulation based on a national code of ethics."

            By the language of this statute, a violation of an adopted code of ethics "brings the medical profession into dispute".  This general contention is arguable, at a minimum. 

 

            Code of Conduct

I.          The Physician-Patient Relationship

            1.         A physician is free to choose whom to serve, except in an emergency. Once a physician patient relationship has been established, there is an obligation to provide care as long as that relationship exists.

            The first sentence of the proposed ethics regulation violates the "Ethical Foundations" which precede the enumerated proposed regulations.  "The welfare of the patient should always be the physician foremost consideration in the formation of medical judgments and decisions (primum non nocere).  This always involves the duty to act in the best interest of the patient (beneficence)."  The proposed ethics regulation would create a duty in the licensee to treat "in an emergency" without regard to whether the person is a patient and regardless of the competence of the physician to address the emergency.  This regulation, would violate the fundamental ethical principal of medicine: "primum non noncere" - above all do no harm.  At a minimum, the phrase "except in an emergency" should be removed. 

The second sentence in the proposed regulation is already law - see NRS 630.304(7). 

            2.         A physician has a duty to ensure that patients (or their surrogates) have received and understand the necessary information to make an informed decision. This should include an assurance that the patient has been presented with appropriate and understandable information on the goal, risks, benefits, possible complications, prognosis and alternatives. Patients (or their surrogates) have the right to refuse treatment.

            Informed consent is addressed in NRS 41A.110.  The whole notion of informed consent is based on the elementary principle that a patient may refuse treatment if they do not wish to accept the risks of which they have been informed.

            3.         The physician must respect both the rights and privacy of patients.  Confidentiality is a fundamental tenet that facilitates patient freedom and discussion. Confidentiality will always be respected by the physician and only overridden when required by law or when the risk of harm to an identifiable third party outweighs the duty to the patient.

            Confidentiality is addressed in NRS 49.225 and in NRS 449.720.

            4.         It is unethical to receive compensation for, provide, or prescribe therapies that are known to be of no benefit or are unnecessary.

            Providing therapies of no known benefit is medical malpractice under NRS 630.301(4).  It also may be criminal fraud under our criminal statutes.

            5.         The physician has an obligation to inform patients, or their surrogates, about their medical condition truthfully and in clear and understandable language.

            Mandating the physician explain in the patient’s own   "clear and understandable language" creates a duty upon physicians that contrasts with federal law.  The Office of Civil Rights of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in August 2003, issued a revised Policy Guidance regarding the provision of interpreters.  The revised Policy Guidance recognized the financial burden imposed upon small providers.  The Policy distinguished between Part A Medicare providers (such as hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies) and Part B Medicare providers, including most physicians in private practice.  The Guidance states that the onerous rules mandating the provision of interpreters would not apply to private practice physicians for office visits.  Thus, the duty and financial burden to provide interpreters to explain a patient's medical condition does not fall on the office based physician.  In practice, patients must supply their own interpreters in office visit settings.  This proposed code of ethics provision would reverse that ruling and require physicians to bear the burden of providing interpreters to ensure their obligation to "inform patients, or their surrogates, about their medical condition … in clear and understandable language".  For the public’s convenience, the Clark County Medical Society maintains a database of languages in which particular physicians are fluent.  Any person can call CCMS and obtain a list of physicians conversant in any particular language.

            6.         The physician shall acknowledge that the patient has a right to the information in the patient 's medical record and will provide the patient access to the information.

            This is addressed in NRS 629.061 and is limited by some of the provisions of 45 CFR 164 (the HIPAA Privacy regulations)

            7.         The physician, as the patient 's advocate, should serve and exercise all reasonable means to ensure that the most appropriate care is provided to the patient.

            This is addressed in NRS 630.301(8) and NRS 630.304(6).

            8.         Sexual relationships between a health professional and a patient involve an abuse of professional power and a violation of patient trust and are prohibited.

            This is addressed in NRS 630.301(5), NRS 630.301(10), and NRS 530.304(5).

            9.         The physician should always be respectful of differences in values and priorities and must not discriminate against patients based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

            This is addressed, among other laws, by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991.  The U.S. Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that such discrimination violates the 14th Amendment.

 

II.         Physician Conduct and Practice.

            Section II of the proposed ethics code regulations, numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, use the word "should".  "Should" is advisory and intended to induce specific conduct.  In the law, words like "should" are known as "precatory" language - "a word expressing a desire for action, but they are non-binding".  Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition.  Use of the precatory "should" is inconsistent with the enforceability of the definitive "shall" and "will" found in statutory and regulatory mandates.  Thus, these proposed ethics regulations are inappropriately worded and would be unenforceable.

            Many of the ethical concepts in Section II would serve as excellent aspirational principles of a code of ethics adopted by a medical association.  They are inappropriate and ambiguous as regulatory law.

            1.         The physician should respect all laws, uphold the dignity and honor of the profession and accept the discipline of the profession.

            Without more definition, how would a physician violate "the dignity and honor of the profession"?  This phrase is ambiguous and arguable.  Would NBME Board members use their own discretion to determine this ambiguity on a subjective case-by-case basis?  Does "accept the discipline of the profession" mean that a physician would be subject to licensure discipline for utilizing his or her right to judicial review of adverse NBME discipline?  The proposed ethics regulation ambiguity likely would render it invalid when challenged.  And the use of the precatory "should" renders this proposed regulation unenforceable.

            2.         Physicians will treat their medical colleagues and other health care professionals and workers with respect, integrity and honesty. They will do so regardless of the race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability of the individuals.

            What constitutes a violation of the mandate to treat "medical colleagues and other health care professionals with respect, integrity and honesty"?  Disruptive behavior is addressed in NRS 630.301(6).  Treating a colleague with sufficient "respect", "integrity", and "honesty" are relative and subjective terms suggesting, without further definition, unenforceable ambiguity.  The prohibition against discrimination of constitutionally protected groups has been previously discussed.

            3.         Physicians should communicate and cooperate  with their medical colleagues and other health care professionals with the goal of meeting the primary commitment to the patient's welfare and best interest.

            The precatory "should" renders this proposed ethics regulation unenforceable. 

            4.         Physicians should recognize the boundaries of their practice and must provide only those services and use only those techniques for which he or she is qualified by education, training and experience.

            This proposed ethics regulation is addressed in NRS 630.306(5).

            5.         Physicians will remain current in the scientific and professional knowledge relevant to the medical services they provide.

            How will physicians be determined to be "current in the scientific and professional knowledge relevant to the medical services they provide"?  This proposed ethics regulation appears addressed in 20 hours of CME required in the field of practice of the licensee, as mandated by NAC 630.153 (the mandatory CME requirements).

            6.         Appropriate consultations will be obtained when medically appropriate or    when requested by the patient.

            This proposed ethics regulation is addressed in NRS 630.301(8) and NRS 630.304(6).

            7.         Physicians should not publicize or represent themselves to patients, colleagues or the public with unsubstantiated, untruthful, misleading or deceptive statements.

            This is addressed in NAC 630.190 which delineates "prohibited advertising".  This NAC regulation is specific and detailed.   The precatory "should" would render this proposed ethics regulation unenforceable. 

            8.         Physicians should not practice medicine while impaired by alcohol or drugs. If they are physically or mentally disabled, they should refrain from assuming patient responsibilities that they cannot discharge safely or effectively.

            This proposed ethics regulation is addressed in NRS 630.306(1) and NAC 630.230(c). 

            9.         Physicians must be conscious of all potential conflicts of interest and not engage in practices that either influence, or appear to influence, the care of patients and result, or potentially result, in personal financial gain. Financial interests that might conflict with appropriate medical care should be disclosed to the patient.

            This is addressed in NRS 630.301(7) and NRS 630.305(g).

            10.       A physician is ethically obligated to report fraud, professional misconduct, incompetence or abandonment of a patient by another physician.

            This is addressed in NRS 630.3062(6).

           

III.       Societal Responsibilities

            The NBME is charged with licensing and regulating medical doctors, physician assistants and respiratory therapists.  To expand that mandate to include "societal responsibilities" exceeds the scope of the NBME's activities.   

            1.         The physician has a responsibility to society as a whole, should support activities that enhance the community and should respect the laws of society.

            The precatory "should" renders this proposed ethics regulation unenforceable.  It is difficult to imagine how the Board would determine a licensee’s insufficient "community enhancement". 

            2.         The medical profession has a collective responsibility to work to see that suitable medical care is available for those in need.

            The NBME does not have authority to discipline "the medical profession."  The medical professions' obligation to "work to see that suitable medical care is available for those in need" seems best addressed by the Nevada Legislature.  In sum, these proposed ethical regulations are redundant and unnecessary notwithstanding their good intent.    

  

1Dr. Havins appreciates the input of former Clark County Chief District Judge Gene T. Porter who's recommended edits of this article have been incorporated.  Mr. Porter concurs with the substance and conclusions of this article.

 

Top

 

Nominating Committee’s Slate of Candidates 2006-07

 

Your CCMS Nominating Committee has chosen the candidates listed below.  The following names will be on your official ballot, which you will receive by May 1st:

 

President-Elect –          Weldon E. Havins, MD

 

Secretary –                    Jerry Jones, MD

 

Delegate Chair –           Annette Teijeiro, MD

 

Treasurer –                   David Steinberg, MD

 

Trustees -                      Howard Baron, MD;

                   Keith Brill, MD;

                   Mark Doubrava, MD;

                   J. Parker Kurlinski, MD;

                   Donald Mohs, MD

 

Nominating

Committee –                 Frank Nemec, MD;

Ronald Slaughter, MD;

Carol Van der Harten, MD;

Michael Verni, MD 

 

The bylaws state any member may nominate an additional candidate for any of the positions subject to the following:

·        The additional nominees must be voting members with two or more year’s consecutive membership in the Society.


·        Each nomination must bear the signature endorsement of four members in good standing.

·        All nominations must be submitted in writing before April 15th.

 

Top

 

MedPac 2006

 

By CCMS MedPac Chairman, David Steinberg, MD      

 

Dear Colleagues:

            It seems like the battles in the last Legislative session, the fight "to the death" over Ballot Question 3 tort reform, and the war to turn back the trial lawyers Questions 4 and 5 were just yesterday.  However, the next Legislative election is already upon us.  Excellent Legislators who support medicine and access to quality medical care are formulating strategies for their re-election.  Candidates who are pro-medicine are now asking for and need our financial support.  This is the first Legislative session where the provisions of Nevada's medical tort reform can be amended (as long as the amendment becomes effective after November 24, 2007).  This Legislature could "wipe-out" some or all of the hard fought tort reforms we all labored so hard to make a reality.  This must not happen.

            There is already talk among some plaintiff trial lawyers of pushing for the passage of a medical "three strikes law" - that is, three findings of medical malpractice against a physician and the physician's license is revoked.  Ridiculous you say?  It is the law in Florida now.  Many Florida docs are complaining that this law is just a means to extort unjustified settlements in frivolous medical malpractice suits (because "settlements" are not "findings" of medical malpractice).  You think your medmal premiums are reasonably affordable now, and that you have never been sued for malpractice?  Just imagine what will happen if this law passes in Nevada! 

            Physicians must support those who supported us during the last Legislative session, and support those who will support our Legislative concerns in the next Legislative session - incumbent or candidate.  To be successful, we must have your contribution.  Political contributions are now just a fact of life in the practice of medicine.  You can contribute a reasonable amount now, or you can pay a whole lot more in the foreseeable future.  Or you can move to California ("Taxifornia" where state income tax alone is over 11%) or Florida (where you can't even purchase 1million/3 million medmal insurance in most counties, and the rates are impossibly high for what is available).

            Because of the tremendous effort of the health care community, Nevada now has one of the very best tort reform laws in the Nation.  If we want to keep it, each of us must pay for good government operating under good laws - and that means good Legislators.  For that, we must have your contribution of $300.00.

            Please send your $300.00 check NOW to:

MEDPAC

2590 E. Russell Road

Las Vegas, NV, 89120

 

 

Top

 

Heroism

Reprinted with permission from www.jama.com

By Catherine D. DeAngelis, M.D., M.P.H.

            The unthinkable tragedy of September 11, 2001, broke the hearts of Americans and many others around the world, and it made us rethink our collective consciousness.  The terrorist attacks were a rude awakening to our potential vulnerability and a sober reminder of the precariousness of life.  But the events of September 11 also reminded us of the true nature of heroes, and a year later we react by seeking out and honoring them.

            America has been starved for heroes, but they are all around us.  Apparently, we had either forgotten the definition of "hero" or become accustomed to a different meaning.  According to Webster's dictionary, a hero or heroine is "a man [or woman] of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his [or her] brave deeds and noble qualities1."  Because "hero" has come to mean both men and women, I have combined the definition and will use the term to mean both.  Nowhere in the definition is there reference to money or power.  However, it may be easy to forget that fact with the substantial attention given to some chief executive officers (CEOs), politicians, movie stars, and sports figures when they are referred to as heroes.  We have confused courage with cash and nobility with power. 

            Consider the following:

  • CEOs generally are paid large salaries to deliver profits to shareholders.  This certainly involves ability, but not necessarily courage or nobility.
  • In our lifetime, how many politicians have also been noble or courageous statesman?
  • A recent New York Times article declared, "Job Openings in Hollywood: Heroes Wanted2." Hollywood scripts produce "heroes" who neatly wrap up unsolvable problems in 90 minutes.

·        Cal Ripken was hailed  as a hero by adoring crowds because he played in 2,130 consecutive baseball games3.             While I admire and respect him, how many men and women work at least that many consecutive workdays for a salary far less than that of the average professional baseball player?

            The true heroes of September 11 were the firefighters, police officers, emergency response workers, and other individuals who remained in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to help others, and all those who escaped while assisting others.  The passengers of Flight 93 also were heroes.  They overpowered armed terrorists, but all lost their lives to protect so many when the plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa, instead of its intended target.  Heroes were the countless others who assisted the families of the survivors and victims in so many different ways.  All of them showed great courage and nobility.

            Ten months later, in Somerset, Pa, just 10 miles from the crash site of Flight 93, 9 coal miner heroes helped each other through 77 harrowing hours in cold darkness to be rescued by other heroes.  Within 10 miles and 10 months, heroes fell from the sky and heroes were lifted from beneath the ground.  The miners were amazed by the national interest in their plight and that they were considered heroes.  They were "ordinary" people, not CEOs, politicians, or movie stars or sports stars.  Like the heroes of September 11, they were merely doing what noble, courageous people do.  They were heroes expecting no reward.

            If there is anything positive about September 11, it is that Americans now know what true heroism is.  Many of us have allowed our common sense and hearts to define it.  The CEOs with the million-dollar compensations are cast in a much different light.  Sports fans are now reacting to the greed of both team owners and players in a way that just might lead to rational salaries for the players and owners.  Wouldn't it be wonderful for a family to again be able to attend a major sports event for less than several days' salary for the average working person?

            So what does all this have to do with medicine?  Everything.  All of us who are involved, directly or indirectly, in the care of patients are potential heroes.  Each of us needs to remember the noble and courageous reasons we had for becoming a physician.  Many of the heroes of the past millennium were physicians.  We can emulate them by ensuring that we bring to medicine the same professionalism they displayed.  Do we now have the courage to force policy makers to pass legislation that will benefit patients with no consideration for how big business will support them for re-election?  We have the potential for great political influence if we let go of our selfish interests.  Do we now have the nobility to refuse the use of our names, reputations, or treatment deicisions for financial gain?  Do we strive to use the best possible treatment for patients, rather than the latest and most heavily promoted?  Can we give up those "free" lunches and dinners, reimbursements for attending continuing medical education programs sponsored by industry, and honoraria for using our names on promotional papers authored by individuals who work for industry?

            None of this would involve risking our lives or livelihood.  All it would take is finding the potential hero inside each of us.  What greater gift could we offer patients?  What better way to honor the heroes of September 11?

 

References

1 Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Random House Publishers; 2001.2 Lyman R. Job openings in Hollywood: heroes wanted. New York Times. August 4, 2002:sect 2:1.3Available at:  http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bal/history/bal_history_timeline.jsp?period=5.  Accessed August 5, 2002.

Author Affiliation: Dr. DeAngelis is Editor, JAMA.

Corresponding Author:  Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH, JAMA, 515 N. State St., Chicago, IL 60610 (e-mail: cathy_deangelis@ama-assn.org).        

 

Top

 

Clark County Health District Report

 

By Donald Kwalick, MD, MPH, Chief Health Officer

 

Mental health patients continue to impact emergency departments

            The Clark County Health District continues to work with our community partners to address emergency room overcrowding and related issues. Our community has struggled with this issue for many years and the situation became critical on July 9, 2004, when more than 100 mental health patients were taking up emergency room beds, leading to the issuance of a declaration of emergency by Clark County.

            At the time of the declaration there were 103 mental health beds at Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (SNAMHS). By the end of 2004 emergency funding allowed an additional 28 beds to be added and during the last legislative session increased funding lead to an additional 50 beds by the close of 2005.

            The new SNAMHS facility will increase the capacity to a total of 217 beds by August 2006. Unfortunately, these increases result in only short term reductions of the mental health patients holding in emergency rooms. It has become apparent that additional beds, while needed, provide only temporary reductions to mental health holds in emergency departments.

            The adverse impact of these mental health patients also has a tremendous affect on Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Over a twelve month period, our emergency departments had more than 553,000 visits. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) data shows that EMS was responsible for transporting about 142,000 of those visits, or approximately 25 percent of the total volume.

            In December of 2005, EMS off-load times were greater than one hour, negatively impacting ambulances ability to respond to 9-1-1 calls. This resulted in delayed responses by ambulances and reduced fire coverage by fire departments.

            In order to address this issue the health district recommended several strategies designed to alleviate the situation:

·        Enforcement of the General Patient Care Protocol section that allows EMS providers to place certain low acuity patients in the waiting room if they have been unable to transfer care within 20 minutes.

·        Utilization of the "First-Watch" software to track the number of ambulances en-route to hospitals and waiting to off-load at area hospitals, and informing patients of the potential wait-time at the hospital they are requesting.

·        Mandating crews to immediately return to service after they have released patients.

·        Enabling EMS personnel to leave patients in the hospital after 30 minutes in accordance with the following criteria:

1.      Make every effort to give a verbal report of the patient's condition.

2.      Leave a completed patient care report with the patient.

3.      Physically transfer the patient to an appropriate hospital location and/or equipment.

            This policy allows EMS crews the use of this option when necessary, but is not a requirement.

            We are working with our partners to identify ways to reduce the number of individuals transported by EMS to hospitals. Optimistic estimates suggest EMS could divert 15 percent of its transports away from hospitals. However, those patients would only represent a 4-5 percent reduction in the total volume to area hospital emergency rooms. Any potential solutions will take time to implement and the impacts to the overall system and the welfare of the patients will have to be evaluated.

            It is imperative we find a solution. There are approximately 325-345 emergency room beds in the Las Vegas Valley. A conservative estimate of emergency bed turnover is every 4.5 hours. This means our area hospitals have capacity to treat approximately 1730 emergency patients on a daily basis.

            Mental health patients stay in emergency rooms on an average for 72 hours waiting for transfer to SNAMHS. This is equivalent to 16 emergency patients and therefore equates to over 1,200 emergency department patient visits that are potentially impacted by mental health patients. To put it another way, mental health patient's utilization of area hospital resources is equivalent to 400 emergency department visits every day.

            This further demonstrates that any solutions involving EMS will have only a minor impact on this problem and as stated previously, history had demonstrated added beds in emergency departments are soon filled with mental health patients, negating the benefits of the added capacity.

            The only strategy that will benefit EMS and hospitals is to join together to find an alternative to medical clearance and eliminate holding mental health patients in area emergency departments. This will have the greatest potential impact on hospital overcrowding and extended EMS offload times. All parties should concentrate on the establishment of a "Mental Health Emergency Department" to medically clear mental health patients and keep them in the mental health system, not in general acute care hospital emergency departments.

 

Top

 

Alliance Message

 

By Shanila Choudhury, 2005-06 CCMS Alliance President

           

The Clark County Medical Society Alliance

5th Annual Spring Fashion Show

 

"Think Pink"

Benefiting the

Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

 

Special Guest Paula Francis

Silent Auction

And other Surprises

 

On Tuesday, March 14, 2006

At 10:30 am

At Caesars Palace Augustus Ballroom in the

Palace Tower

Cost

$100 Charitable Donation

 

This is a Pre-paid event.

Please buy your tickets

As soon as possible.

For tickets and more information contact

Shanila Choudhury at

(702) 355-2019

or email Choud@aol.com

for more information

go to out website www.ccmsa-lv.org

 

For those of you, who would like to advertise in our program book, please contact Estela Hansen for more details at 240-3149 or 496-0456 cell. We are expecting 300 to 500 people.  This is an event open to the public and a chance for us to let the community know the physicians and their families are making a difference here in the Las Vegas Community.

 

Top

 

Nevada State Medical Association’s 102nd Annual Meeting and Scientific Session

 

Mark Your Calendars! April 27-30, 2006 at the Alexis Park Resort in ***Las Vegas, Nevada***

 

This is the first time in years that this meeting will be held in Las Vegas.  We need Delegates.  We hope to have the best attendance ever.  The number of Delegates we are allowed is based on a percentage of our membership.  Last year we could have had 36 Delegates and we only had 11.  This annual meeting determines the policies and programs of the Association.  Listed below is a sample of what happens at the annual event: 

            1. A half day Scientific Session

            2. President’s Luncheon (usually has an interesting speaker)

            3. Very Informative Governmental Affairs Meeting

            4. Reference Committee meetings where resolutions are discussed and perfected to become policy

            5. Dinner and Awards ceremony where the NSMA and NSMAA Presidents are inaugurated

 

This year the Delegation Chair for CCMS is Dr. Marietta Nelson.  Please call Dot Freel at 739-9989 to sign up or get more information.

 

Top

 

 

Classifieds

 

sos md: #1 choice for medical billing.  Increase your profits and reduce your practice expenses.  Seven years experience locally in Gynecology, Family Practice, General Surgery, Vascular/wound care.  I offer a percentage or flat fee.  Call Donna (702) 493-8041.

 

HOUSE FOR RENT: Short term, located in prestigious Rancho Bel Air, this 4 bedroom, 31/2 bath home is partially furnished and ready for move in.  Pool and spa in the beautiful back yard.  May also work for a “vacation rental” if needed.  Please call Ann at (702) 338-5335 for more information.

 

highest percent reimbursement: Shortest turnaround time, we work with your patients to answer all billing questions.  Electronic submission, 10 years experience.  The Billing Office, LLC, accurate, fast, personable, lowest price.  Interested? Skeptical? Diane will answer your questions, (702) 992-0890.

 

Attractive medical office suite available FOR SUBLEASE: March 2006, 3,128sqft available.  10001 S Eastern Avenue, Suite 407, Henderson, NV 89052 (Del Webb Medical Plaza/St Rose Hospital.  Contact Mgr. @ Children’s Bone and Spine, 702-434-6920.

 

NEW MEDICAL OFFICE AVAILABLE FOR LEASE: Windmill Medical Center, 1,500-5,000sqft available, 1525 E Windmill Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89123 (I-215 & Windmill).  Lease rate $2.00sqft and $40sqft TI Allowance.  Contact Mgr @ Children’s Bone and Spine Surgery. 702-434-6920.

 

Top

 

CME CALENDAR

Bechtel Nevada     295-0208

 

NV Chapter AACE 434-8400

 

Pri-Med Institute     (877) 4PRI-MED

 

Sierra Health Services 242-7735

 

Southern Nevada AHEC     318-8452

3-9-06 - “Diabetes Update”

4-13-06 - “Updates on Viral Hepatitis”

 

Southwest Medical Associates   242-7735

 

Summerlin Hospital     233-7572

 

Sunrise Hospital     731-8210

 

UMC     383-2604

 

Valley Hospital     388-4847

 

Only CME Activities held at the Clark County Medical Society office are specifically endorsed by CCMS.

 

Top

 

Clark County Health District Disease Statistics* - January 2006

 

CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT

DISEASE STATISTICS* - January 2006

DISEASE                              CASES REPORTED          YEAR TO DATE

                                                            Jan 2005 Jan 2006 2005 2006

VACCINE PREVENTABLE DISEASES

DIPTHERIA                                           0          0          0          0

HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZA                  1          3          1          3

HEPATITIS A                                         0          2          0          2

HEPATITIS B                                         2          2          2          2

INFLUENZA                                           22         84         22         84

MEASLES                                            0          0          0          0

MUMPS                                                0          0          0          0

PERTUSSIS                                          2          5          2          5

POLIOMYELITIS                                    0          0          0          0

RUBELLA                                             0          0          0          0

TETANUS                                             0          0          0          0

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES

AIDS                                                     22         9          22         9

CHLAMYDIA                                         452       598       452       598

GONORRHEA                                       219       246       219       246

HIV                                                       14         18         14         18

SYPHILIS (Early Latent)                         0          5          0          5

SYPHILIS (Primary & Secondary)            3          11         3          11

ENTERICS

AMEBIASIS                                          2          0          2          0

BOTULISM-INTESTINAL                         0          0          0          0

CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS                       4          5          4          5

CHOLERA                                             0          0          0          0

CRYPTOSPORIDIOSIS                          2          0          2          0

E. COLI O157:H7                                   0          1          0          1

GIARDIA                                               2          3          2          3

ROTAVIRUS                                          84         151       84         151

SALMONELLOSIS                                 14         14         14         14

SHIGELLOSIS                                       4          2          4          2

TYPHOID FEVER                                  0          0          0          0

VIBRIO                                                 0          0          0          0

YERSINIOSIS                                        0          0          0          0

OTHER

ANTHRAX                                             0          0          0          0

BOTULISM INTOXICATION                     0          0          0          0

BRUCELLOSIS                                      0          0          0          0

COCCIDIOIDOMYCOSIS                        7          5          7          5

ENCEPHALITIS                                     1          0          1          0

HANTAVIRUS                                        0          0          0          0

HEMOLYTIC UREMIC (HUS)                  0          0          0          0

HEPATITIS C                                         0          0          0          0

HEPATITIS D                                         0          0          0          0

INVASIVE STREPTOCOCCAL0              0          1          0          1

LEGIONELLOSIS                                   0          3          0          3

LEPROSY                                             0          0          0          0

LEPTOSPIROSIS                                  0          0          0          0

LISTERIOSIS                                         0          0          5          0

LYME DISEASE                                    0          0          0          0

MALARIA                                              0          0          5          0

MENINGITIS, ASEPTIC/VIRAL                4          3          4          3

MENINGITIS, BACTERIAL                      3          1          3          1

MENINGOCOCCAL DISEASE                0          0          4          7

PLAGUE                                               0          0          0          0

PSITTACOSIS                                       0          0          0          0

Q FEVER                                              0          0          0          1

RABIES (HUMAN)                                 0          0          0          0

RELAPSING FEVER                              0          0          0          0

ROCKY MTN SPOTTED FEVER             0          0          0          0

RSV                                                     432       427       432       427

TOXIC SHOCK SYNDROME                   0          12         0          12

TOXIC SHOCK SYN                               1          0          1          0

(STREPTOCOCCAL)

TUBERCULOSIS                                   7          5          7          5

TULAREMIA                                          0          0          0          0

UNUSUAL ILLNESS                               0          0          0          0

WEST NILE VIRUS                                0          0          0          0

 (ENCEPHALITIS)

WEST NILE VIRUS (FEVER)                  0          0          0          0

 *Numbers include confirmed and probable cases.

 

Top

 

County Line Advertisers

 

Consultants in Marketing….944-2464

DMSL Medical Management & Billing Service ….. 558-2326

Investment Equities….221-3375…. www.investmentequity.com

Lee & Associates…………739-6222….. www.LeeLasVegas.com

Mason Medical Management …..458-2455….. no website

Medical Group Management Association ….. 697-5471 ext. 134

Medical Liability Association of Nevada (MLAN) ….. 804-7333 ….. www.mlan.org

Nevada Mutual Insurance Company ….. 798-6001 ….. www.nevadamutual.com

Priority One Commercial ….. 228-7464 ….. www.priorityonecommercial.com

Protrans ….. 877-6333 ….. www.protranslv.com

Red Rock Radiology ….. 731-2888 ….. www.redrockradiology.com

Schadler Kramer Group …933-3000…. www.skglasvegas.com

 

 

Top