California considers law to inform patients of doctors’ misconduct

A controversial rule that would force some physicians on probation for medical misconduct to disclose the offense to their patients was approved last week by the state Senate, which killed a more stringent version of the bill last year.

If approved by the state Assembly and ultimately signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the bill would require physicians to notify patients if they are on probation for the following: sexual misconduct; drug or alcohol abuse while treating patients; or a criminal conviction involving patient treatment. Patient notification would also be required if the doctor had been put on probation multiple times.

“We’re very happy to see this bill move forward and that it continues to include a requirement that doctors on probation for certain reasons must notify their patients about that probation,” said Lisa McGiffert, director of the Safe Patient Project of Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports.

Consumers Union said patient notification is crucial because state research shows that doctors who have been placed on probation by the Medical Board of California are more likely to be disciplined in the future.

The notification requirement is embedded in SB 798, which reauthorizes the state medical board. The agency, which opposed the notification requirement last year, now supports the bill.

That support came after its author agreed to make several changes. Earlier versions of the bill required doctors to inform their patients about the specific charges against them. It also would have required patient notification for a wider range of disciplinary actions.

Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, author of SB 798, has questioned the Medical Board’s past opposition to patient notification. During a Feb. 27 joint legislative session where various state medical boards were reviewed, Hill pointedly asked, “Why is it that the medical board is reluctant to notify patients when their doctors are on probation?”

Kimberly Kirchmeyer, executive director of the Medical Board, said some board members were concerned the requirement would “interfere with the physician/patient relationship” and that it could impact the “time-frame for that physician to be able to see the patient because so many questions would come up at that time.”

Kirchmeyer also said information on disciplinary actions taken against a physician are currently available on the Medical Board’s website.

“Right now, the information is out there for individuals,” Kirchmeyer told the joint session. “The patients themselves have that right to look up that information and obtain that information rather than having it told to them.”

Nearly 600 doctors in the state have been put on probation by the Medical Board for offenses including sexual misconduct, drug use, prescribing medications without documentation, over-prescribing opioid drugs and failure to report the medical history of multiple patients, among others.

There were seven doctors in Sonoma County on probation earlier this year, according to a report prepared by the Medical Board for the Feb. 27 joint legislative session. Only two of these doctors committed offenses that would have triggered patient notification under SB 798, McGiffert said. Both were for sexual misconduct.

The patient notification requirement, if signed into law, would take effect on or after July 1, 2018.

Although the Medical Board now supports the patient notification requirement, the 43,000-member California Medical Association continues to oppose the patient notification provisions of SB 798.

Hill said Friday that it’s not enough to have disciplinary information available on the Medical Board’s website. He said seniors, who are among the groups more inclined to seek medical attention, are often not very computer-savvy and others may not have access to the internet.

He also said patients would not think to investigate their doctor unless they suspected he or she had done something wrong. Patients, he said, would “have to have a reason because they’re not suspicious and very trusting.”

McGiffert said it’s a challenge for the average person to find information about a doctor’s probation.

“When they do find ?the physician’s profile, they have to wade through legal documents to know why their doctor is on probation, how ?long they’re on probation.”

Hill said he’s confident the notification requirement will make it to the governor’s desk this year. He said the bill has received significant bipartisan support.

“Everyone is concerned about the well-being and safety of patients,” Hill said. “All this bill does is protect patients.”