Skip to main content

Home/ healthcare regulation and scandals/ Group items tagged orders

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Brett Snodgrass

Dr Social - Should i be concerned??? - 0 views

drsocial.org/...3678

Doctor information ask a family doctor ask a doctor online social telehealth ask a family doctor free chat with a doctor live physician Healthgrades

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 08 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Brett Snodgrass on 08 Apr 15
     
    Healthcare scandals along with the related relevant medical and scientific literature highlighting why the actions are considered a scandal. Regulatory medicine, healthcare, health policy, and patient safety. Doctor Brett Snodgrass, MD has a particular interest in transparency in healthcare and policy suggestions that regulators can consider in order to prevent things such as the VA Scandal, the UMKC Pathology Breast Cancer Scandal of 2011, and many others including the Stem Cell Scandal of South Korea in 2006.
Brett Snodgrass

Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P. 2d 291 - Nev: Supreme Court 1993 - Googl... - 0 views

scholar.google.com/scholar_case

healthcare regulation Nevada medical license phyisician medical regulation state board medical examiners professional regulation Board of Examiners in Medicine Antitrust Board of Medical Examiners patient safety Board of Registration for the Healing Arts

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 28 Oct 15 - Cached
  • While the Board withheld documents from Dr. Mishler on the expressed basis of its policy of confidentiality, it violated that policy when it forwarded confidential material, including the transcripts of Dr. Mishler's conversations with an investigator, to Dr. Mishler's neurosurgical colleagues.
  • Finally, even though the Board had the right to obtain the records and Dr. Mishler did not, the Board attempted to shift the burden for the preservation of evidence to Dr. Mishler.
  • In short, we conclude that the Board's actions and the proceedings against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Therefore, we reverse the disciplinary order of the Board in its entirety and dismiss all proceedings against Dr. Mishler with prejudice.
  • The Board's power was not exercised for the proper and commendable purpose of protecting 297*297 the public from incompetent and negligent physicians. Instead, the Board wielded its power to ruin the career of an outspoken physician while simultaneously protecting a possibly negligent or incompetent practitioner who had questionable billing procedures.
  • Also, while the Board used its own rules of confidentiality as an excuse to obstruct Dr. Mishler's access to evidence, it violated the same policy with respect to Dr. Mishler's confidential reports.
  • Despite the absence of this evidence—office records, X-rays, and diagnostic films— at the hearing,
  • the Board disciplined Dr. Mishler.
  • Brett Snodgrass on 28 Oct 15
     
    The Nevada state medical board demonstrated egregious abuse of its power and placed patient safety at risk in doing so.
Brett Snodgrass

Quality of medical regulation by a state medical board.pdf - 0 views

state medical board MO SBRHA licensure physician physicians doctors regulation medical regulation medical license medical licensure Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 04 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • his report, from Missouri, describes the repeated failure of the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (SBRHA) in distinguishing safe and effective coronary artery stenting from unnecessary stenting.
  • state medical boards (SMBs
  • d to ensure that only competent physicians are practicing medicine and that those physicians act in a professional manner
  • ...23 more annotations...
  • According to Chaudhry et al., physicians are given due process by SMBs [1,9]. However, this report of fraudulent or fraud-like regulation by the SBRHA demonstrates that licensees are not always afforded the “luxury” of due process.
  • This report describes the numerous efforts to discipline interventional cardiologist, Antoine Adem, MD, by the Missouri (MO) State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (SBRHA)
  • The SBRHA cited no peer-reviewed literature or scholarly work in support of their claims of negligent patient care.
  • legislatively establish
  • filed blatantly dishonest
  • ried to conceal the exculpatory deposition of Dr. Tobis
  • The SBRHA
  • scientifically unmeritorious claims alleging unsafe patient care in court
  • ntentionally mischaracterized the medical records reviewed by Dr. Kern
  • “to punish or penalize in order to train and control
  • definition of discipline
  • is it concerning that none of the eight doctors on the SBRHA demonstrated sufficient medical knowledge to either know that Dr. Adem’s provision of care was appropriate or to learn that it was appropriate
  • The physicians of the MO SBRHA have repeatedly demonstrated
  • misrepresentation
  • ignoranc
  • attempted concealme
  • regulatory miscondu
  • fraud
  • ineffective communication
  • gross negligence
  • Further investigation and study of regulatory misconduct by SMBs is critical to determine its extent and impact.
  • Missouri SBRHA.
  • Brett Snodgrass on 04 Mar 16
     
    This article provides novel insight into the quality of medical regulation by the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts. This article raises critical questions about the efficacy and integrity of a state medical board and suggests that further study is needed to evaluate the extend of regulatory misconduct.
Brett Snodgrass

Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P. 2d 291 - Nev: Supreme Court 1993 - 0 views

scholar.google.com/scholar_case

healthcare regulation professional regulation Board of Registration for the Healing Arts medical license Board of Medical Examiners Board of Examiners in Medicine patient safety Arizona medical board AZ healthcare quality improvement act HCQIA Court of Ap

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 21 Oct 15 - Cached
  • When we look beyond the label of the discipline given to Dr. Mishler to the true nature of the facts, we conclude that the discipline was unwarranted. The Board's power was not exercised for the proper and commendable purpose of protecting 297*297 the public from incompetent and negligent physicians. Instead, the Board wielded its power to ruin the career of an outspoken physician while simultaneously protecting a possibly negligent or incompetent practitioner who had questionable billing procedures.
  • In short, we conclude that the Board's actions and the proceedings against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power.
  • Therefore, we reverse the disciplinary order of the Board in its entirety and dismiss all proceedings against Dr. Mishler with prejudice.
  • Brett Snodgrass on 21 Oct 15
     
    In 1993, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned all the of the AZ Medical Board's claims v. Dr. Mishler with prejudice. The Board's actions against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power.
‹ Previous 21 - 24 of 24
Showing 20▼ items per page