Professional License Bill Raises Questions: HB 2105 Testimony
Good morning. I’m Dr. Mark Piasio, president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society and a practicing orthopedic surgeon from Dubois.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Gannon and the rest of this committee for allowing the Pennsylvania Medical Society to testify.
Today, we are here to discuss House Bill 2105, which on the surface appears to have good intentions to protect Pennsylvanians from criminals who might also hold a professional license in our state.
However, the bill raises plenty of questions, creates duplication of efforts, and potentially harms doctors with good medical skills. This is likely not the intent of the bill; however, the bill would create these serious questions. Thus, the Pennsylvania Medical Society suspects that HB 2105 creates unintended problems.
Let me explain by first mentioning some of the questions this bill raises.
Is this a duplication of efforts?
Currently, specific to physicians, the state Board of Medicine and the state Board of Osteopathic Medicine have the ability to pull a license when warranted by criminal behavior.
The boards now are required to suspend a physician's license for a controlled substance conviction. For a felony controlled substance conviction, the suspension must be for a minimum of ten years in the case of an MD. For a misdemeanor controlled substance conviction, the suspension may be for up to one year.
The boards also have the authority to suspend a physician's license or impose other discipline for other felonies and misdemeanors related to the practice of medicine.
Finally, the physician licensing boards have the authority to suspend a physician's license immediately – without the delay that can result from full due process proceedings – if they determine that the physician's continued practice presents "an immediate and clear danger to public health and safety."
Thus, in the case of physicians, HB 2105 will become a duplication of efforts between the state and the courts. One might even wonder if the right hand knows what the left hand is doing.
The boards are in the best position to evaluate whether the physician is fit to practice. If the prosecutor in a court proceeding has a concern, the prosecutor can simply alert the appropriate licensing board.
Impaired physician program
The boards may stay the suspension for a misdemeanor controlled substance conviction (but not a felony controlled substance conviction) if the physician committed the violation only for personal use of a controlled substance and agrees to participate in a professional health monitoring program, a/k/a/ impaired physician program.
Physicians participating in an impaired physician program must enter into a consent agreement, which outlines the terms of their treatment and further provides monitoring and other key conditions to protect the public.
Physicians with drug convictions are only given the option of participating in the disciplinary program; they are not eligible for the voluntary program. As a result, the discipline is public, is reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, and cannot be expunged at the completion of the physician's participation.
It also is noteworthy that the impaired physician program typically requires the physician to agree to at least a three-year suspension, which is longer than the maximum suspension that otherwise would be allowed under the mandatory suspension requirement. Although the suspension is stayed, it is reinstated for the full three years if the physician violates the terms of the program.
So, we believe that the current practice of the boards appropriately addresses the intent of protecting patients from practitioners with specific legal violations. More importantly, the proposed legislation would impede the ability of the physician licensing boards to rehabilitate physicians through the impaired physician program.
Reinstatement?
As mentioned, the state boards of medicine can revoke a license, but can reinstate the license after 5 years if the physician satisfies all the conditions for licensure (except in the case of a mandatory 10 year suspension for a felony controlled substance conviction). And, upon successful completion of a suspension, the boards can reinstate a doctor’s license, if appropriate.
Unfortunately, HB 2105 leaves no provisions to allow a rehabilitated physician to regain a license. Furthermore, it does not indicate who would be responsible for reinstatement should it be appropriate.
Unintended consequences?
Again, while the bill appears to have good intentions, it does have its drawbacks. In addition to those legal questions that I just mentioned, consider the following.
Two parents are watching their children play little league baseball. Since we know how some sports parents can be, let’s assume the parents have an argument that leads to pushing. This could be a misdemeanor offense. And, while it has nothing to do with a person’s ability to practice medicine, if either of the parents is a physician, he or she would automatically lose his or her license.
In conclusion, the Pennsylvania Medical Society doesn’t believe that the intent of this bill is to create a nightmare. However, through duplication of state responsibility, reinstatement questions, and unintended consequences, HB 2105 could very well become a nightmare for Pennsylvania. Thus, it would not serve its original good intentions.
Since the bill presents too many unanswered questions, and since there is already a state licensure process to sanction convicted physicians, the Pennsylvania Medical Society cannot support HB 2105. We believe it has the potential to harm physicians with good medical skills.
Again, I thank the members of this committee for giving the Pennsylvania Medical Society an opportunity today to discuss HB 2105. We stand ready to work with you to achieve the worthy goal of protecting Pennsylvanians from criminals with professional licenses.
Last Updated: 10/11/2007