ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Phoenix, Arizona
allopathic board of medical
examiners
Purpose
Makes numerous changes to
the statutes governing the Allopathic Board of Medical Examiners (Board)
relating to the authorities of the executive director and review committees,
the definition of “unprofessional conduct,” physician profile web site
information, inactive licenses, emergency disciplinary action and civil
penalties.
Background
The primary purpose of the
Board is to license and regulate physicians in order to protect the public from
incompetent, unqualified or inappropriate practice by physicians who may be
medically, mentally or physically unable to safely engage in the practice of
allopathic medicine, or may be guilty of unprofessional conduct. The Board has the statutory responsibility
to examine and license medical doctors, and to enforce the standards of the
practice of medicine. The Board
licenses approximately 15,000 physicians, more than 700 physician assistants
and handles more than 900 complaints each year.
Currently, when the Board
initiates an investigation against a physician, whether on its own motion or on
receipt of a complaint, the Board is required to notify the physician of the complaint
(A.R.S. 32-1451). In the course of its
investigation, the Board may conduct mental, physical or oral or written
medical competency examinations and conduct investigational interviews between
Board representatives and the physician.
If, after completing the
investigation, the Board finds the information does not merit disciplinary
action against the license of the doctor, the Board may either dismiss the
complaint or file an advisory letter.
If the Board believes the information gathered during the investigation
is true, the Board may request a formal interview with the doctor. If, after completing a formal interview, the
Board finds the information does not merit suspension for more than 12 months
or revocation of the license, the Board may take one of the following actions:
1. Dismiss the complaint.
2. File an advisory letter. (This is a nondisciplinary action.)
3. File a letter of reprimand. (This is a disciplinary letter.)
4. Issue a decree of censure. (This is
generally considered more severe than a letter of reprimand.)
5. Place the physician on probation, which
may include a temporary suspension not to exceed 12 months, restriction of the
doctor’s license to practice medicine, a requirement of restitution of fees to
a patient or education or rehabilitation.
(Probation is a period of time the doctor is under compliance review and
usually has specific requirements with which the doctor has to comply.)
6. Enter into an agreement with the doctor to
restrict or limit the doctor’s practice.
If the Board finds the
information warrants suspension for longer than 12 months or revocation of the
physician’s license, the Board is required to refer the complaint to the Office
of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing. The Board, however, may review the administrative law judge’s
decision and accept, modify or reject it (A.R.S. §41-1092.08).
In an attempt to address a
backlog of complaints, the Legislature authorized the Board’s chairperson to
divide the Board into two six-member review committees for the purpose of
reviewing complaints to either dismiss those that are without merit, issue an
advisory letter or refer the complaint back to the full Board (Laws 1995,
Chapter 212). According to the Board,
review committees have not been used in some time because the full Board
dismisses complaints and issues advisory letters in block votes. H.B. 2412 attempts to improve and accelerate
the investigation/adjudication process by expanding the authorities of the executive
director and the review committees.
Provisions
1. Allows review committees to conduct formal interviews and eliminates the requirement of review committees to consist of six members.
2. Authorizes the executive director, if delegated by the Board, to dismiss complaints involving medical incompetence if the information does not merit action against the licensee.
3. Allows the executive director to refer any case to a formal hearing. (Currently, the executive director may, if delegated by the Board, only refer cases to a formal hearing if evidence warrants suspension or revocation.)
4. Defines, as “unprofessional conduct,” sexual conduct with a current or former patient within one year after the last medical consultation unless the patient was the physician’s spouse or was dating or engaged to the physician immediately preceding the physician-patient relationship.
5. Eliminates sexual intimacies with a patient under the definition of “unprofessional conduct.”
6. Expands the exemption under the requirement of physicians to first conduct a physical examination of a patient before prescribing and dispensing prescription medication or devices to include physicians who provide temporary patient supervision on behalf of the patient’s regular treating licensed health care professional.
7. Clarifies the physician profile web site must include all medical malpractice settlements in which a payment is made to a complaining party within the last five years.
8. Prohibits a licensed physician from requesting an inactive license if the physician is under investigation or the Board has commenced disciplinary action against the physician.
9. Makes permissive the requirement of the Board to grant inactive licenses.
10. Allows, in addition to ordering a summary suspension, the Board to take emergency action to restrict or limit a physician’s license pending proceedings to take action on a complaint.
11. Increases, from $300 to $1,000, the minimum amount the Board may impose for a civil penalty.
12. Makes numerous technical changes.
13. Provides for a general effective date.
House Action
HEA 1/15/01 DP 10-0-0-0
3rd Read 2/12/01 55-0-5-0
Prepared by Senate Staff
March 16, 2001