sas5814 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Our medical board seems to frequently make decisions outside their mandate mostly oriented towards protecting the financial interests of physicians in Texas. They have repeatedly tried to stop telemedicine and get spanked every time. This is just one instance and we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for defending them in these cases. Recently the Supreme Court ruled the states could be held responsible for the actions of these boards who are virtually unsupervised and seem to answer to no state authority. They recently lost a federal case where, from the board, they tried to regulate practices to stop PA ownership and retroactively strip existing owners of their practice. http://www.teladoc.com/news/2015/05/29/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-teladoc/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Welcome to Texas! The Bible Belt full of good ole' boys who make unilateral decisions just based on whatever.................. Born and raised there. PA educated there. Left nearly 20 years ago. A nice place to grow up but getting more funky everyday. I am embarrassed by Rick Perry and Ted Cruz and all the others. Sorry to hear how bad it still is............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 P.S. I don't endorse or like telemedicine. Just me. Too fraught with mistakes and disasters in the making. I do not endorse the TMA doing what they do, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator True Anomaly Posted August 31, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2015 Our medical board seems to frequently make decisions outside their mandate mostly oriented towards protecting the financial interests of physicians in Texas. They have repeatedly tried to stop telemedicine and get spanked every time. This is just one instance and we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for defending them in these cases. Recently the Supreme Court ruled the states could be held responsible for the actions of these boards who are virtually unsupervised and seem to answer to no state authority. They recently lost a federal case where, from the board, they tried to regulate practices to stop PA ownership and retroactively strip existing owners of their practice. http://www.teladoc.com/news/2015/05/29/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-teladoc/ Honest question- how does the link you provided relate to PA practice ownership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 Honest question- how does the link you provided relate to PA practice ownership? I'm not sure how you mean the question. This is a state specific discussion for Texas not a practice ownership discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator True Anomaly Posted September 5, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 5, 2015 I'm not sure how you mean the question. This is a state specific discussion for Texas not a practice ownership discussion. Your last sentence ties your post into PA practice ownership, referencing a case where the board tried to stop PA ownership in Texas. Do you have a link for this case you referenced for us to read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetMeOuttaThisMess Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I believe he may be stating that the TMB doesn't have the greatest track record with regard to fighting restriction to practice cases. Me personally, I don't know that I'd be too keen on utilizing it (my employer's insurance coverage offers it) since it would be a half-ass attempt to provide care in my opinion (in logistical cases, half-ass is better than no-ass I guess), but that being said, what isn't in the majority of low acuity illnesses? All we're primarily doing is looking for bad things that the pt. doesn't know enough about to hone in on or those serious cases which should be fairly self apparent (cough, fever, increased respiratory rate, low pulse ox, and looks sick). We all know that everyone gets a door prize when we're done with them (abx.) anyway. No door prize, no coming back, no income, no business (or for those in the ED, pt. satisfaction scores). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator True Anomaly Posted September 5, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 5, 2015 I believe he may be stating that the TMB doesn't have the greatest track record with regard to fighting restriction to practice cases. Me personally, I don't know that I'd be too keen on utilizing it (my employer's insurance coverage offers it) since it would be a half-ass attempt to provide care in my opinion (in logistical cases, half-ass is better than no-ass I guess), but that being said, what isn't in the majority of low acuity illnesses? All we're primarily doing is looking for bad things that the pt. doesn't know enough about to hone in on or those serious cases which should be fairly self apparent (cough, fever, increased respiratory rate, low pulse ox, and looks sick). We all know that everyone gets a door prize when we're done with them (abx.) anyway. No door prize, no coming back, no income, no business (or for those in the ED, pt. satisfaction scores). I'm aware of all that, and as a PA in Texas as well I'm interested in seeing PA's be majority practice owners as they can be in other states. Which is why I am very interested to hear what exactly the TMB did or has done to restrict PA practice ownership. And he referenced a case involving the TMB and PA practice ownership. I'd just like to read about it, because it sounds like SAS knows quite a lot about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 It is a bit of a long story. PAs in Texas had plenty of work arounds to permit practice ownership and there were a couple of hundred PA owned practices in Texas. Some physicians in the valley didn't like competing with some PA owned practices so they made a complaint to the board. The board announced its intention to simply forbid physicians from working in PA owned practices. TAPA got involved and negotiated an agreement that forbade PAs from having more than 49% ownership of a practice. They considered this a good deal and touted it as a huge step forward in "officially allowing" PAs to own practices. It wasn't but that is another whole long story. Then the medical board wrote a rule stating practices currently owned by PAs would become subject to this rule if the physician supervisor changed. This , in essence, would take the practice away from the PA owner and/or force its sale. One physician down on the coast intentionally resigned as a physician supervisor in a PA owned practice and then bought the same practice in a fire sale. Myself and a group of PA practice owners (I don't own a practice. It is just a subject I have some passion for) created an organization called "The Physician Assistant Political Alliance" and sued the board in federal court. We attempted to have the whole thing over turned and had some success. The rule still stands but making the change retroactive in any way was found by the court to be improper. The ruling was upheld when the board/state appealed the decision. The cost to the group that financed this case was about $200k and , of course, we the taxpayers in Texas paid for the state to defend the board. I can probably find the actual ruling in my archived documents if you want to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalPA Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 What is the benefit of the federal suit? What did you win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 What we had hoped to win was unrestricted PA practice ownership. What we ended up winning was stopping the board from making their rules retroactive thus taking away practices from long term PA practice owners. Texas is one of 6 or 7 states that still has a doctrine that prohibits anyone but a physician from owning a practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator True Anomaly Posted September 8, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 8, 2015 It is a bit of a long story. PAs in Texas had plenty of work arounds to permit practice ownership and there were a couple of hundred PA owned practices in Texas. Some physicians in the valley didn't like competing with some PA owned practices so they made a complaint to the board. The board announced its intention to simply forbid physicians from working in PA owned practices. TAPA got involved and negotiated an agreement that forbade PAs from having more than 49% ownership of a practice. They considered this a good deal and touted it as a huge step forward in "officially allowing" PAs to own practices. It wasn't but that is another whole long story. Then the medical board wrote a rule stating practices currently owned by PAs would become subject to this rule if the physician supervisor changed. This , in essence, would take the practice away from the PA owner and/or force its sale. One physician down on the coast intentionally resigned as a physician supervisor in a PA owned practice and then bought the same practice in a fire sale. Myself and a group of PA practice owners (I don't own a practice. It is just a subject I have some passion for) created an organization called "The Physician Assistant Political Alliance" and sued the board in federal court. We attempted to have the whole thing over turned and had some success. The rule still stands but making the change retroactive in any way was found by the court to be improper. The ruling was upheld when the board/state appealed the decision. The cost to the group that financed this case was about $200k and , of course, we the taxpayers in Texas paid for the state to defend the board. I can probably find the actual ruling in my archived documents if you want to see it. Thanks for taking the time to let me know- it's certainly frustrating to see PA practice ownership be curbed when it clearly works in other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalPA Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 That's sad. I'd be interested in learning about the work arounds. If they still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetMeOuttaThisMess Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I've been around since the early years and don't remember PA's ever being able to have a majority ownership in a practice here. Nothing more than the above stated 49%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 That's sad. I'd be interested in learning about the work arounds. If they still exist. The deal TAPA signed off on is now law and the work arounds are pretty much dead and gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 I recently had a meeting with the driving force behind the law suit. It turns out the courts ruled against the board entirely. There is now a high court opinion against restricted practice ownership. There are plans afoot to have legislation passed in the next session to make state law match up with the court ruling. In answer to a previous question about the 49% rule... prior to this deal being made and passed into legislation there were several type entities a PA could form or join to own a practice as evidenced by the 135+ PA owned practices that were subsequently enjoined by this latest legislation. The 49% rule came into being in the last legislative session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Is there any chance this could be an FTC case? Restraint of trade against PAs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetMeOuttaThisMess Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/page/renewal-jointly-owned-physician-pa Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Yuk, bad law. Why would a PA want to own their own practice, they can't in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 Late follow up.. after all the appeals and what not the federal courts essentially struck down restrictions on practice ownership in Texas. I now own my own practice (as of 2 weeks ago) and expect legislation in the next session to follow the federal court ruling. In the interim the medical board is no longer sending letters to practices asking them to declare their ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalPA Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Oh wow that is a great development. Congrats. Hopefully this is only the beginning. Can this be used to do the same in other states? Precedence? Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 It was in federal court. I'm no lawyer but it would seem to have national implications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX2GA Jake Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Sounds great, do you happen to know which court this case was in? Just interested in looking for the ruling when it is published. Thanks for keeping us updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpsmanUP Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Here is the Texas appellate ruling, http://cases.justia.com/texas/third-court-of-appeals/2015-03-12-00735-cv.pdf?ts=1423908862 The jist being that HB2098 only applies to jointly owned MD/PA practices. It does not limit 100% PA owned practices, and if the practice is owned 100% by PAs then none of the limits of HB2098 apply to the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cideous Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 You guys should be given a medal. From one PA in Dallas I say thank you. That must of been a ton of work, and money. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.