Law Offices of Christopher L. Nuland
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Law Offices of Christopher L. Nuland

on

  • 726 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
726
Views on SlideShare
726
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Law Offices of Christopher L. Nuland Law Offices of Christopher L. Nuland Document Transcript

    • Law Offices of Christopher L. Nuland 1000 Riverside Avenue, Suite 115 Jacksonville, FL 32204 (904) 355-1555 nulandlaw@aol.com Dear FGS Board of Directors: During the 2005-2006 year, our office was pleased to provide the FGS with an expanded level of service that still came within budgeted amounts. Although the FGS Insurance Corporation project was suspended for business reasons, the entity remains and can be used for other ventures as circumstances dictate. Legislative Highlights For the first time, our office provided weekly legislative updates and ensured that the interests of gastroenterologists were monitored in Tallahassee. While 2006 saw no direct FGS intervention, the Florida Chapter of the ACP has a mature legislative program designed to protect the interests of all internal medicine physicians. Through this “leveraging,” the FGS was able to have an inexpensive, viable legislative program. Results Florida House Bill 699 was signed into law on June 19, 2006. Among the important provisions of this legislation are physician supervision requirements for satellites offices (offices other than a physician’s primary office) that utilize nurse practitioners and physician assistants,with special rules for those satellite offices that practice primarily aesthetic skin care services.. Additionally, the number and location of satellite offices that can be supervised will be limited in number. The bill also reduces physician CME requirements for HIV and domestic violence. A section by section analysis follows: Section 1: Changes the current biennial requirement for a one hour domestic violence course to a two hour course every third biennial. This reduces the burden of taking mandatory domestic violence CME. Section 2: Changes the current biennial requirement for HIV CME from once every biennium to once, just before the first renewal. This reduces the burden of taking mandatory HIV CME. Section 3: Mandates that ARNP protocols be part of the ARNP’s practitioner profile.
    • Allows public access to such protocols, likely leading to better-drafted and explicit documents. Section 4: Technical section implementing Sections 1 and 2. Section 5: Amends Florida Statute 458.348 to regulate supervisory relationships in medical office settings. The provision states, "A supervisory relationship in medical office setting: A physician who supervises an advanced registered nurse practitioner or physician assistant at a medical office other than the physician's primary practice location, where the advanced registered nurse practitioner or physician assistant is not under the onsite supervision of a supervising physician, must comply with the standards set forth in this subsection, or the purpose of this subsection, a "physician's primary practice location" means the address reflected on the physician's profile published pursuant to F.S. 456.041 (a) A physician who is engaged in providing primary health care services may not supervise more than four offices in addition to the physician's primary practice location. For the purpose of this subsection, "primary health care" means health care services that are commonly provided to patients without referral from another practitioner, including obstetrical and gynecological services, and excludes practices providing primarily dermatological and skin care services, which include aesthetic skin care service." (emphasis added) This section limits to four the number of satellite facilities (in addition to a primary care physician's office) a primary care physician may supervise. A further discussion of the rules for those who provide primarily skin care services is provided in subsection (c). (b) A physician who is engaged in providing specialty health care services may not supervise more than two offices in addition to the physician's primary practice location. For the purpose of this subsection, "specialty health care" means health care services that are commonly provided to patients with a referral from another practitioner and excludes practices providing primarily dermatological and skin services, which aesthetic skin care services.
    • (c) A physician who supervises an advanced registered nurse practitioner or physician assistant at a medical office other than the physician's primary practice location, where the advanced registered nurse practitioner or physician assistant is not under the onsite supervision of a supervising physician and the services offered at the office are primarily dermatological or skin care services, which include aesthetic skin care services other than plastic surgery, must comply with the standards listed in subparagraphs 1-4, Notwithstanding s-458.347 (4) (e) 8., a physician supervising a physician assistant pursuant to this paragraph may not be required to review and cosign charts or medical records prepared by such physician assistant. 1. The physician shall submit to the board (Board of Medicine) the addresses of all offices where he or she is supervising an advanced registered nurse practitioner or physician's assistant which are not the physician's primary practice location. 2. The physician must be board-certified or board-eligible in dermatology or plastic surgery as recognized by the board pursuant to s. 458.3312. 3. All such offices that are not the physician's primary place of practice must be within 25 miles of the physician's primary place of practice or in the count that is contiguous to the count of the physician's primary place of practice. However, the distance between any of the offices may not exceed 75 miles. 4. The physician may supervise only one office other than the physician's primary place of practice except that until July 1, 2011, the physician may supervise up to two medical offices other than the physician's primary place of practice if the addresses of the offices are submitted to the board before July 1, 2006. Effective July 1, 2011, the physician may supervise only one office other than the physician's primary place of practice, regardless of when the addresses of the offices were submitted to the board. This is the most controversial of the sections, and will require modification by some physicians. However, it is instructive to review what the above does NOT do. Subsection (c) does not affect 1. Facilities in which neither PAs nor ARNPs perform “primarily” skin care services. As long as such a satellite performs primary care, which may include skin care services, it is regulated under subsection (a); 2. Facilities in which the only service being performed by the ARNP or PA is hair removal; If the GI owns a satellite which is dedicated to the services described and is unable to add primary care services, he or she may (a) either engage a plastic surgeon or dermatologist as a medical director to provide the required supervision or (b) limit the services to nonmedical services and not engage an ARNP or PA. (d) A physician who supervises an office in addition to the physician's primary practice location must conspicuously post in each of the physician's offices a current schedule of
    • the regular hours when the physician is present in that office and the hours when the office is open while the physician is not present. This section affects all satellites, but does NOT require any minimum presence by the physician, only that the patient is notified if and when a physician is likely to be present. The Section also provides exceptions and requires specialists who receive referrals to give the patient the option of seeing the physician and the type of practitioner in writing. In any event, the specialist must review the chart or written report of the initial examination and issue a written report to the referring physician within 10 days. This section responds to the concerns of PCPs who often would refer a patient, only to have that patient seen by an extender without the specialist physician ever seeing the patient. Section 6. Repeals obsolete language in the D.O. statutes. Section 7. Applies section 5 to D.O.s Section 8. Requires the Board of Nursing to review ARNP protocols for compliance with state law. Under current law such protocols are filed but not reviewed. Section 9. Instructs the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to study the state's nursing shortage. In other news, on June 12, 2006, the Governor capped several years of effort by signing Florida House Bill 587, the Truth in Medical Education (TIME). Under this legislation, all health care providers will be required to disclose to patients (either orally, in writing, or by wearing a nametag that includes this information) the license under which they are operating. Moreover, all health practitioner advertising also must disclose this information. The law, which becomes effective July 1, 2006, will enable patients to know the true educational and professional training of those wishing to treat them, and includes a legislative finding of fact that several practitioners are misrepresenting their credentials and thereby creating a threat to patient safety. Special thanks to House sponsor Bill Galvano, and Senate sponsor Mike Bennett for making this fine bill a reality Board of Medicine I personally attended each and every Rules Committee and Surgical Care Committee of the Board of Medicine. While several initiatives were offered, we were successful in limiting new regulation to updates of existing rules. It should be noted, however, that the Board has recognized a disconcerting number of perforated bowels during colonoscopies and is paying special attention to what it deems to be a disconcerting trend.
    • Specific Developments In its 2005 Surgical Care Committee Report. Overall, the Committee was optimistic in tone, noting decreases in office surgery deaths and wrong-site procedures and complimenting the level of cooperation between the Committee, providers, and professional associations such as ours. Of the three deaths noted (the lowest total since such statistics have been officially kept), two involved radiological procedures, while one involved a vascular stent. Six of 2005's 64 total incidents involved endoscopic procedures. The Report also notes that, of the 41 wrong-site surgery cases considered by the Board from August of 2004 through June of 2005, only two involved incidents occurring after the Board's "Time-Out" rule became effective on February 18, 2004. As anticipated, the Board of Medicine promulgated the following amendments, all of which are consistent with FGS policy. A. The OSR will apply to all facilities not otherwise licensed under Chapter 390 or Chapter 395. Under old law, health care clinics not owned by physicians technically could be exempted. B. The surgical logs now must also include the time the patient arrived in the surgical suite, the name of the physician providing the medical clearances, the surgeon's name, the diagnosis, the CPT codes, ASA classification, the level of surgery, the anesthesia provider, the duration of recovery, the disposition of the patient upon discharge, and a list of medications used during surgery and recovery. The logs still are confidential and need not be reported to the Board. C. All physicians performing office surgery must be qualified by education, training and experience to perform the procedure in the office surgery setting. This is the most fundamental of all the OSR provisions, and one consistent with our long- standing policy of ensuring the highest standards for the office-based surgeon. We did, however, have to hold a hearing on this subject, as the original language would have required GIs to be able to perform the entire range of possible office procedures, not only those associated with gastroenterology. D. The Board of Medicine amended the surgical "time-out" rule to make compliance mandatory not only for the surgeon, but also the anesthesia provider. This should help surgeons (including gastroenterologists performing invasive procedures) by making anesthesiologists also accountable for compliance. E. The Board of Medicine enacted its annual revisions to the crash cart contents needed in a Level II and III office surgery. In most cases, the new regulations simply provide a minimum dosage amount and are meant to comply with the latest AHA guidelines. The additional new requirements are:
    • Adenosine 6mg/2 ml x3 Albuterol Inhaler Amiodarone 150 mg x2 Atropine 0.4 mg/ml; 3 ml replacing 0.1mg/ml; 5ml Requiring at least 50 ml of Dextrose 50% Diphenhydramine 50 mg Requiring at least 200 mg of Dopamine Flumazenil 0.1 mg/ml; 5ml x 2 Furosemide 40 mg Hydrocortisone or Methylprednisone or Dexamethasone Requiring at least 100 mg of lidocaine Requiring at least 1 mg x 2 magnesium sulfate Requiring 0.4 mg/ml; 3 ml of naxolene Propranolol 1 mg x 1 Succynylcholine 1 vial Vasopressin 20 units x 2 Requiring 5 mg x 2 of Verapamil A Benzodiazepine must be stocked, but not on the crash cart Contents No Longer Needed Dilantin (phenytoin) Heparin Pronestyl (procainamide) Finally, as you may have heard, the FMA has filed suit against a proposed Board of Pharmacy rule that would allow pharmacists to make therapeutic substitutions without consulting the prescribing physician. Our society has been invited to add our name to the growing list of specialty societies opposing this proposal, and we have done so. Medicare With increasing CMS and FCSO attention on the use of Remicade, our office has been in contact with the manufacturer, Centocor, to alert physicians as to how to respond to audit requests. GIs are reminded to review LCD 5672 and to ensure that its provisions are followed precisely when drafting letters of medical necessity. I hope that the above is useful. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. It is a pleasure and honor to serve. Chris