Origin of practice ownership concerns?

[rev ronin]

So, remember that MQAC was proposing to restrict practice ownership by PAs?  I think the origin of that may be in a case they write about in this quarter's newsletter. Both practitioners are out of Clark County, but I've avoided mentioning their full names despite their being public record:

 

RDK. MD.  Cause of action: Respondent prescribed testosterone and HGH for patients involved in bodybuilding without a medically justified diagnosis.  Commission Action: Three years probation; restricted from prescribing steroids other than prednisone; shall not possess testosterone or other steroids at office or at home; will not supervise a PA that owns the clinic where respondent works; course work in treatment of hypogonadism, record keeping, and ethics; paper; $5,000 fine; practice reviews; compliance appearances.

 

RLK, PA. Alleged: Respondent failed to report in a timely manner the onset of his supervising physician's threatening behavior and inappropriate prescribing of testosterone, HGH, and human chorionic gonadotropin.  Commission Action: Probation; ethics course; respondent will not have any relationship with his supervising physician that impacts the supervisor's ability to oversee practice; $1,000 costs; supervising physician to present quarterly reports.

 

Giving the PA the benefit of the doubt, he appears to have been placed in a position where the commission believes he should have reported his SP's conduct, but failed to do so.  The commission's published actions appear to place the blame for his failure to report on the financial relationship between the two practitioners.  While the public won't ever be privy to the commission's internal investigations, no mention is made of any medical judgment error on the PA's part.

[Guest Paula]

All the more reason why PAS should be able to have 100% practice ownership and be independent from a physician.