 |
... is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
|
|
SECOND REQUEST - URGENT
CONFERENCE CALL REQUEST Subject: OPPOSITION to AB 655 ------------------------------------------------- Sent by E-mail and Fax to: 916-319.33.06,
on July 20, 2011. ATTENTION: Ross Warren, Chief
Consultant, CA Assembly B & P Committee. Dear Mr. Warren, Thank you very much for taking my
call this afternoon. Kindly, provide a copy of this
letter to Assemblymember Hayashi, forthwith, and
incorporate this letter in the official legislative history of AB 655. The following will memorize our
brief conversation. You advised me that our opposition
to AB 655 was duly noted and that any future correspondence would be recorded. Would
you please provide us the link to that record. I asked you if you had the
opportunity to review the correspondence Dr Weinmann
and myself addressed to your office, but you did
not respond. I asked you to direct your attention
to my letter, dated July 13, 2011, to share with you the analysis of Harvey
Frey MD PhD JD and the proposed amendment of Jeffrey White Esq, Senior Amicus Counsel of the American Association for
Justice, the umbrella organization of the Consumer Attorneys Of California ? Unfortunately, you did not want to
discuss the merits of these comments and proposal. I asked you for your understanding
of section (e) of AB 655 and you refused to discuss it with me. You stated that you have been
working on this bill for 3 years with CMA because of your desire to protect the
consumer from bad physicians hopping from
one hospital to the next. In response, I pointed out to you
that Bell does it,... but you rudely interrupted
me and did not want to listen to me. Are you aware of the fact that
Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hosp.(1989)
212 Cal.App.3d 1034 is the original law that protects the CA consumers
? In that published opinion, the court
of appeal went on to hold that the hospital was under a duty to seek out
the peer review information from a hospital that had withdrawn the
doctor’s privileges. Indeed, the court upheld a medical
malpractice verdict against the hospital based on the hospital’s negligent
failure to do so. Furthermore, in Webman v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (1995) 39
Cal.App.4th 592, the court clearly stated the following: “In order for LCMH to fulfill
its legal duty to its patients, it was obliged to investigate any
disclosures made in an application for reappointment, or uncovered in the ensuing review
process, which raised questions about a professional staff member’s quality of care at another hospital.” (emphasis
added). You also stated that you were
comfortable with the peer review system in California, sic. I was shocked by such an outlandish
statement. As you would not let me respond, I
couldn't ask you if you were aware of the fact that the CA Senate Business
& Professions Committee actually questioned the integrity and validity of the medical
peer review system in CA, see: "Is Physician Peer Review a Broken System?"
http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/ca-senate.php You then proceeded to tell me that
you intend to pursue this bill and have no desire, nor any intention to
entertain any amendment. When I asked you once again to
explain to me how does section (e) protect the
consumer, you refused to discuss it with me. You stated once again that you were
very confident that AB 655 protects the consumer and benefits from the support
of CMA that represents all physicians in CA, sic. When I told you that all CMA members
do not support AB 655 and I asked you to familiarize yourself with CMA's
President concerns regarding AB 655, as documented in the letter I
submitted to you, dated June 12, 2011, you interrupted me and told me that AB
655 has the support of CMA from the bottom all the way to the President. Nevertheless, you acknowledged that
I am a CMA member and that not all CMA members support AB 655. You then abruptly advised me that it
was the end of our conversation and that you did not wish me to call your
office again.In response, I advised you that it was
only the beginning of our conversation and you hang up ! Basically, your position can be best
summarized as follows: " Please do not confuse me with the facts, as I have already made up
my mind." Needless to say that I was shocked
by your attitude, due to your stubborn refusal to entertain any question,
however legitimate it may be. You did not even pretend to listen to me ! I am very sorry that you had such a
hostile conduct, as you did not even hesitate to willfully and knowingly ignore
the significant issues raised by multiple prominent CA physicians. I find your behavior bizarre,
to say the least. I am sorry to inform you that AB 655
section (e) facilitates and promotes the " Code
of Silence " which is the reason FEAR permeates through the
whole " House of Medicine ". That does not enhance the CA
Consumer's interests, let alone our Patients' Safety, see: Many docs have kept quiet on errors,
incompetence: study from Modern Physician
Online, December 3, 2007 The survey of primary-care and
specialty physicians found that: - 45% weren’t always reporting
impaired or incompetent colleagues in their practices, and - 46% of physicians who knew of
a serious medical error were not reporting the error “ at least
once” to authorities. http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/modernphys.pdf The fact that insurance companies
are purchasing physicians' groups should be of great concern to the consumers,
as their best economical interests run in the opposite direction of
the best interests of our patients, see: "Managed care enters the exam room as
insurers buy doctors groups" I sincerely hope that after you
consult with Assemblymember Hayashi, you will
reconsider your posture regarding AB 655, so that we can entertain a civilized and professional conversation regarding the most
significant shortcomings and dangers of AB 655, in order
to remedy these issues to the best interests of our Patients' Safety. Respectfully submitted, 
Gil Mileikowsky
MD - President and Founder, - Alliance For Patient Safety, AFPS, http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/ - http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/socalphysgm.pdf - http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/blackbox.pdf |