On Thursday, May 23, the Senate Appropriations Committee will be considering a bill that would require a coroner to file a report with the medical board when a controlled substance is found to be a contributing factor in a death. While well-intentioned, SB 62 simplifies a very complicated issue to the potential detriment of patients.

SFMS/CMA is urging physicians to contact their senators today and ask them to oppose this flawed bill.

SB 62 (Price) would expand provisions to require a coroner to file a report with the Medical Board of California when he or she determines that a Schedule II, III, or IV drug was a contributing factor in a death.

Senator Price's stated assumption that a coroner’s report connects the dots between overdose deaths and so-called physician overprescribing is fundamentally flawed. This bill is a response to growing concern about prescription drug abuse, an issue that is of great concern to SFMS/CMA and physicians across the state. However, the statistics show that the vast majority of people who abuse prescription drugs acquire them from friends and family (often without their knowledge) or from sources other than the prescriber. There are also many circumstances in which individuals with legitimate prescriptions for controlled substances might die, including non-compliance with prescriber's orders or mixing the drugs with other substances like illicit drugs or alcohol.

If this bill is allowed to become law, it will become increasingly more difficult for patients being treated for pain to get appropriate treatment, as physicians will become less likely to prescribe controlled substances for fear of a medical board investigation.

We ask that you and your colleagues call, fax, or email your legislators TODAY.  

Call (877) 362-8455 to be connected with your legislator or click here to send an email (sample email via link).

---

Talking Points

• As a physician, I am very concerned about the growth in prescription drug abuse and want to be a partner in addressing it, but SB 62 is an approach that will have significant unintended consequences.
• The reports being required under SB 62 will make physicians less likely to prescribe drugs on Schedule II, III, and IV for fear of investigation even in instances when the care is appropriate. Doing so will impact patient’s ability to get appropriate pain management.
• There are many circumstances in which a person with a legitimate prescription for a controlled substance may die, including the patient being non-compliant with the prescriber’s orders or mixing the drugs with other substances like illicit drugs or alcohol.
• Patients being treated for pain may also have comorbities that could result in death. None of these instances reflect inappropriate practice by a physician and yet all of them could be reported to the medical board for investigation under SB 62.
• Further, the vast majority of people (70%) who use drugs for non-medical purposes did not get it from a prescriber, but from other sources.
• The risk of negatively impacting patient care must be balanced with the potential benefit. Given all the extenuating factors that exist in assessing overdoses related to controlled substances, SB 62 is not balanced.

SFMS and CMA have joined an unprecedented coalition of physicians, dentists, health care workers and hospitals working to stop the 10% Medi-Cal reimbursement rate cut.

The We Care for California coalition was borne of an effort to build a strong coalition of diverse organizations fighting to ensure that California’s health care system doesn’t continue to get short changed. So often in the past, health care advocates have become divided in their efforts, so focused on individual organizational interests, that the collective strength is weakened. We Care for California intends to stand undivided in using the coalition’s collective influence in defense of health care.

The coalition’s first major effort is to ensure that two CMA-sponsored bills—SB 640 (Lara) and AB 900 (Alejo)—are passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Brown. Both bills, sponsored by CMA, would stop the 10 percent Medi-Cal rate cut.

Join “We Care for California” in Sacramento on Tuesday, June 4 from 11 am to 4 pm

to call on State Legislators and the Governor to stop the $1 billion reduction in provider rates in the Medi-Cal program. SFMS/CMA physicians will stand with nurses, dentists, and other health care providers as well as patient and consumer groups to advocate for the support of SB 640 and AB 900.

This will be the largest health care gathering ever at the state Capitol, and will send a powerful message that we expect our elected leaders to stand up for quality care in California.

The goal is to bring 10,000 health care providers together from across the state participate.

Buses will be available to transport anyone who wants to participate from hospitals around the state to the Capitol building in Sacramento at no charge to the participant. If you are interested in attending the event, please register at www.wecareforca.org to reserve a seat on the bus nearest you.

Click here for detailed event and RSVP information.

The California Medical Association (CMA), together with other amici, has asked the California Supreme Court to depublish an appellate court opinion that thwarts the long-standing definition of "professional negligence" in California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). The ruling, if allowed to stand as precedent for future cases, could be misused to undermine the goals of MICRA and adversely affect the entirety of the health care system and safety net in California.

In Flores vs. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, a hospital inpatient sued for injuries she allegedly sustained from a fall when her hospital bed rail collapsed. The appeals court ruled that the negligence did not occur in the rendering of professional services and as such was subject to the two-year statute of limitations for ordinary negligence rather than the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence.

CMA, California Dental Association, and California Hospital Association filed a joint amicus letter urging the Supreme Court to depublish the Court of Appeal’s opinion on the grounds that the opinion was wrongly decided, having been based on a poor factual record and consideration of less than all the pertinent authority.

CMA’s letter points out that under the long-standing definitions in MICRA, professional negligence includes any act or omission by a health care provider in the rendering of professional services for which the provider is licensed. Despite this clear definition and the fact that the provision and maintenance of safe hospital beds is a service for which hospitals are licensed, the Court of Appeal’s opinion failed to even address the pertinent licensing laws and regulations.

CMA and the other amici urged depublication because this wrongly decided opinion will not provide meaningful guidance in future cases and obscures the definition of what constitutes professional negligence under MICRA.

MICRA, California’s landmark professional liability reforms, have for nearly 40 years fairly compensated injured parties while protecting access to care for Californians.

Click here for more information on MICRA.

A package of bills aiming to expand or alter the scope of practice for a collection of allied health professionals successfully cleared the Senate Committee on Business, Profession and Economic Development yesterday.

The scope bills—SB 491, 492 and 493—are being authored by Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) and deal with the respective scopes of practice for nurse practitioners, optometrists and pharmacists in California.

While all three bills are now heading to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, SFMS/CMA made important headway on these proposals, garnering some significant concessions that we hope to build upon as the legislation moves forward.

This is the first step in a long journey for these bills, and CMA staff will continue to work diligently to ensure that our concerns are addressed. We also expect the proposals to face an enhanced level of scrutiny should they be approved on the Senate floor and enter the Assembly.

Below is an update on where the bills now stand, including highlights of some of the many amendments and revisions that took place in the past few weeks.

SB 491 - Nurse Practioners

This bill would expand the scope of practice for California’s Nurse Practitioners, allowing them to establish independent practices without the supervision of a partner physician. SFMS and CMA have consistently “opposed” this bill.

Our primary concern with this bill continues to center on the issue of patient safety, but also touches upon the increased costs that may come with under qualified health care professionals ordering unnecessary tests or making superfluous recommendations to specialists. In addition, we called attention to the fact that nurse practitioners did not move to medically underserved areas in Arizona, a stat that granted them independent practice in 1985.

SB 492 - Optometric Corporations

SB 492 initially sought to dramatically expand the scope of practice for California’s optometrists, originally asking that they be allowed to diagnose and treat a host of ailments that manifest in the eye, including diabetes and high blood pressure. In its original form, the bill also allowed optometrists to administer surgical procedures current outside their legal scope of practice.

While SFMS/CMA continues to take an opposed position on this bill, significant amendments have taken place in the past few days. As it stands now, all of the surgical procedures and most of the treatments generally reserved for ophthalmologists have been removed from the bill. This represents significant progress and will provide us a place to build from as the bill moves forward.

SFMS/CMA still has considerable concerns regarding primary care responsibilities that would be extended to optometrists if the bill is allowed to move forward, specifically regarding the ability to diagnose, rather than simply screen for, ailments that may manifest in the eye. It should be noted, however, that optometrists have agreed to not include treatment for primary care in the most recent version of their proposal. We remain committed to working with the author to address these concerns.

SB 493 - Pharmacy Practice

SB 493 seeks to expand the existing scope of practice for pharmacists in California, and is perhaps the bill where SFMS/CMA made its greatest progress leading up to Monday’s hearing. As a result, SFMS/CMA originally took an opposed position to the bill, but has since moved to “oppose unless amended” in advance of Monday’s hearing.

Initially, this bill would have expanded pharmacists’ scope in a way that allowed them to prescribe a wide variety of drugs without physician supervision. Following a round of amendments, much of the prescribing authority has been removed from the bill, but there continue to be some major areas of concern for SFMS/CMA.

The major concern deals with the author’s desire to allow pharmacists to prescribe smoking cessation drugs that both the Medical Board of California and SFMS/CMA consider to be psychotropic in nature. We believe this to present a major risk to patient safety and will continue to oppose the bill until these issues are resolved. Several members of the committee also raised this concern, and as a result, the sponsors acknowledged the issue and committed to working with CMA to resolve it.

As mentioned before, all of these bills still face some considerable hurdles before they can become law and we believe the level of scrutiny will increase as they move forward.

A coalition of physicians, legislators, medical students, and residents gathered on the steps of the Capitol to support several key pieces of legislation that will address California's mounting issues regarding its physician workforce during CMA Lobby Day.

California’s health care industry is expected to see an enormous surge in demand beginning in 2014, when the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) begins the process of extending coverage to what many analysts are projecting could be more than 5 million currently uninsured residents. To compound this problem, a large number of these currently uninsured residents live in areas of the state already grappling with long-standing physician shortages.

Several members of the state Legislature have introduced bills dealing to the various stages of physician training and development in California.

The first step, lawmakers agreed, was to ensure that California was taking the necessary measures to educate its future physicians, a goal which Senator Richard Roth (D – Riverside) and Assembly member Jose Medina (D – Riverside) believe would be furthered by funding the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine.

The pair, which has each authored a bill to allocate $15 million annually in state funds to the operation and expansion of the UC Riverside School of Medicine, agreed that the expansion of coverage called for under the ACA was a tremendous first step toward health care reform in California, but that more needed to be done, especially in regions struggling with existing physician shortages.

Other members of the Legislature have directed their attention toward California’s lack of residency slots, a problem which they claims sends California-educated physicians off to neighboring states, while the problem of access to care at home grows worse.

To remedy this issue, Assembly members Raul Bocanegra (D – Pacoima) and Rob Bonta (D – Alameda) have authored AB 1176, which would help fund and expand residency programs in California by placing a small fee on the state’s health plans.

Both Bocanegra and Bonta noted that an overwhelming majority of residents ultimately lay down roots in the state where they complete their residency training, and that California is doing itself a disservice by forcing California-educated physicians to seek programs in other states.

The financial burdens of a medical education also pose an enormous challenge to California’s students, speakers said, adding that the average medical student in California graduates with roughly $150,000-$160,000 in debt.

To relieve some of this burden, Assembly member Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) has authored AB 565, which would expand and strengthen the Steve Thompson Loan Repayment Program, which offers repayment assistance to physicians practicing in medically underserved areas of the state.

Together these bills will ensure that California’s physicians can continue to lead a health care model that will fully and adequately serve the state’s population.

AB 1176 passed with a 10-5 vote and AB 565 passed with unanimous support in Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday afternoon.