Thursday, March 16, 2017
NMA Conference April 7-9, 2017
Register Today!
 |
|
|
|
Letter in support of John R. Holcomb for TMA Board of Trustees
March 14, 2017
Dear colleague:
BCMS proudly supports John R. Holcomb, MD for TMA Board of Trustees
The Bexar County Medical Society and the Bexar Delegation to the Texas Medical Association announce the candidacy of John R. Holcomb, MD, for TMA Board of Trustees.
Dr. Holcomb has been a member of the Bexar County Medical Society (BCMS) and Texas Medical Association (TMA) since 1982, the year he began private practice in Pulmonary/Critical Care in San Antonio. A graduate of Texas A&M University and Southwestern Medical School, Dr. Holcomb trained in Internal Medicine and Pulmonary Medicine/Critical Care at the University of California Hospitals and the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio. In addition, Dr. Holcomb is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, having served with 1st Special Forces Group, Academy of Health Sciences, Brooke Army Medical Center, 114th Evacuation Hospital, 90th Army Reserve Command, and U.S. Army Hospital, Kosovo.
An active member in organized medicine, Dr. Holcomb served as Bexar County Medical Society President in 1993. He has previously served on numerous committees at BCMS and currently sits on the Society’s Legislative and Socioeconomics Committee. Dr. Holcomb has served on the BCMS Board of Directors for 3 years and presently holds the position of Treasurer. He has been a delegate to the TMA since 2007. Dr. Holcomb has had extensive service at the TMA level, serving 9 years on the Council on Socioeconomics and 15 years as Chair of the Select Committee on Medicaid, CHIP and Access to Care. He has also held numerous ad hoc committee assignments and has frequently testified before the Legislature on behalf of TMA and affiliate organizations.
Dr. Holcomb has also previously held board assignments in the community, including the Texas Society of Internal Medicine, Texas Hospital Association, Methodist Healthcare System, and Methodist Hospital Physician Alliance.
Presently, he serves on the Board of Texas Medical Liability Trust and as Chair of BexarPac, a political action committee with a focus on judicial races in Bexar County.
We respectfully request your support of Dr. Holcomb for TMA Board of Trustees at TexMed in May.
Leah H. Jacobson, MD
BCMS President
Jayesh Shah, MD
BCMS Past President
William (Bill) Hinchey, MD
TMA Past President
Jesse Moss Jr., MD
BCMS Past President
James L. (Jim) Humphreys, MD
TMA Council on Legislation
Gerald Greenfield, MD
BCMS Board Secretary
Alex Kenton, MD
Chair, BCMS Legislative Committee
K. Ashok Kumar, MD
TMA Board of Councilors
David N. Henkes, MD
TMA Board of Trustees
Advocating for physicians, patients, and our community since 1853.
PO Box 781145 • Zip 78278 • 4334 N Loop 1604 W, Ste 200 • San Antonio, TX 78249-3485 • (210) 301-4391 • www.bcms.org
Dear colleague:
BCMS proudly supports John R. Holcomb, MD for TMA Board of Trustees
The Bexar County Medical Society and the Bexar Delegation to the Texas Medical Association announce the candidacy of John R. Holcomb, MD, for TMA Board of Trustees.
Dr. Holcomb has been a member of the Bexar County Medical Society (BCMS) and Texas Medical Association (TMA) since 1982, the year he began private practice in Pulmonary/Critical Care in San Antonio. A graduate of Texas A&M University and Southwestern Medical School, Dr. Holcomb trained in Internal Medicine and Pulmonary Medicine/Critical Care at the University of California Hospitals and the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio. In addition, Dr. Holcomb is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, having served with 1st Special Forces Group, Academy of Health Sciences, Brooke Army Medical Center, 114th Evacuation Hospital, 90th Army Reserve Command, and U.S. Army Hospital, Kosovo.
An active member in organized medicine, Dr. Holcomb served as Bexar County Medical Society President in 1993. He has previously served on numerous committees at BCMS and currently sits on the Society’s Legislative and Socioeconomics Committee. Dr. Holcomb has served on the BCMS Board of Directors for 3 years and presently holds the position of Treasurer. He has been a delegate to the TMA since 2007. Dr. Holcomb has had extensive service at the TMA level, serving 9 years on the Council on Socioeconomics and 15 years as Chair of the Select Committee on Medicaid, CHIP and Access to Care. He has also held numerous ad hoc committee assignments and has frequently testified before the Legislature on behalf of TMA and affiliate organizations.
Dr. Holcomb has also previously held board assignments in the community, including the Texas Society of Internal Medicine, Texas Hospital Association, Methodist Healthcare System, and Methodist Hospital Physician Alliance.
Presently, he serves on the Board of Texas Medical Liability Trust and as Chair of BexarPac, a political action committee with a focus on judicial races in Bexar County.
We respectfully request your support of Dr. Holcomb for TMA Board of Trustees at TexMed in May.
Leah H. Jacobson, MD
BCMS President
Jayesh Shah, MD
BCMS Past President
William (Bill) Hinchey, MD
TMA Past President
Jesse Moss Jr., MD
BCMS Past President
James L. (Jim) Humphreys, MD
TMA Council on Legislation
Gerald Greenfield, MD
BCMS Board Secretary
Alex Kenton, MD
Chair, BCMS Legislative Committee
K. Ashok Kumar, MD
TMA Board of Councilors
David N. Henkes, MD
TMA Board of Trustees
Advocating for physicians, patients, and our community since 1853.
PO Box 781145 • Zip 78278 • 4334 N Loop 1604 W, Ste 200 • San Antonio, TX 78249-3485 • (210) 301-4391 • www.bcms.org
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Texas Wins Tort Border Battle
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Monday
in favor of a Lubbock physician entangled in a question of whether Texas or New
Mexico law should apply in a liability case involving care that was provided in
Texas but for a New Mexico patient.
The decision is a victory for TMA, West Texas physicians, and
organized medicine in Texas and New Mexico. Although the specifics of the
verdict applied to a Texas physician who was employed by a government
institution, TMA’s General Counsel opines that the ruling should be helpful to
all Texas physicians treating patients from New Mexico traveling to Texas. This
is because the Texas 2003 medical liability reforms are generally more
favorable that those in place in other states.
The case, Montano v.
Frezza, involved Kimberly Montaño,
a New Mexico resident, who sought surgery in 2004 from Eldo Frezza, MD, a
Lubbock bariatric surgeon and professor at Texas Tech University Health
Sciences Center. The issue was over which state’s medical liability laws would
prevail in a case in which a New Mexico resident received care in Texas but
claimed complications after returning to New Mexico. For additional details on
the case, see "Border Battle," from the November
2015 issue of Texas Medicine.
Dr. Frezza told TMA he was exhausted by the fight but elated
by the ruling.
“The lawyers have to understand how their activity is
affecting patients, not just physicians,” he said. “This lawsuit was affecting
tons of patients in eastern New Mexico. A lot of good people, working people,
people who pay taxes are affected by the blindness of our society.”
Howard Marcus, MD, chair of the Texas Alliance for Patient
Access (TAPA), which was one of several Texas groups that filed briefs in the
case, also hailed the decision.
“Yet again, TAPA, working with its member organizations,
such as the TMA and county medical societies, has prevailed in a crucial
decision that promotes access to care across the Texas-New Mexico state line,”
Dr. Marcus said. “Common sense and logic have prevailed.”
The Texas Medical Liability Trust (TMLT), University of
Texas System, and New Mexico Medical Society also filed briefs in support of
Dr. Frezza’s position.
The 4-1 decision “only considered the issue of comity – that
is respecting the sovereignty of sister states,” said Jill McClain, TMLT executive
vice president for government relations. The court’s analysis of that issue
focused heavily on data that TAPA, TMA, TMLT, the American Medical Association,
several county medical societies, and others provided showing how much
residents of eastern New Mexico depend on West Texas physicians and hospitals
for care.
“Access to cross-border health care for individuals living
in rural parts of New Mexico is an additional consideration that tempers New
Mexico’s interest in applying its law to this case,” the court majority wrote.
“We do not consider it overly speculative to conclude that extending comity to
Texas in this case will positively serve New Mexico’s public policy interests by
encouraging the continuing cooperation of Texas and New Mexico in maintaining
cross-border care networks.”
Although the court ruled in favor of the Dr. Frezza in this
instance, TMA suggests physicians continue to avail themselves of the law New
Mexico enacted last year allowing them to obtain a signed agreement from New Mexico patients stating that should
they wish to file a lawsuit they will do so in Texas court. To help physicians take
advantage of the law's protections, TAPA developed two forms, one for emergency
treatment and one for voluntary treatment. You can download the emergency
treatment and voluntary treatment forms (English or Spanish-and-English) from the TMA website.
In consultation with an attorney, TMA suggests physicians who
treat New Mexico patients or patients living in other states consider adopting this
language in the practice forms patients sign.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Scope Code Blue
Drop date: Monday,
March 13, 2017
Audience: All
physician members in Texas with email who did not open Feb. 28 alert
Subject line: An Onslaught
of Bad Scope Bills. Stop Them
Headline: IF YOU WANT
TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL
Template: TMA
Dear Dr. [LAST]
Please act now to block two
bad bills that would allow people with far less education, skills, and training
to do what you do.
Remember the long hours you spent studying in medical school, the
permanent stench of formaldehyde on your clothes and body, the months of
reading weighty textbooks and traipsing behind your physician mentors during
your clinical clerkships?
Remember the interminable days and nights and weekends during your
residency when you learned how to actually take care of a patient, with
increasing degrees of autonomy?
As physicians, our education, skills, and training are more than just badges
of honor. They’ve earned for us the privilege of practicing medicine, of having
patients place their health in our hands with the reasonable expectation that
we will help them heal or mend safely.
Some members of the Texas Legislature, however, don’t quite see it that
way. They don’t appreciate the work we’ve put in to obtain that privilege. They
think it’s safe to allow lesser-trained practitioners to play doctor.
In fact, we’ve seen an onslaught of bad bills that would expand those
practitioners’ scope of practice. More than 40 such proposals have been filed
here in Austin this year. Some would grant advanced practice registered nurses
(APRNs) independent prescribing. Others would allow direct access to physical
therapists without a physician diagnosis and referral, allow psychologists to
prescribe, and give pharmacists diagnosis and prescribing authority. And there
are many more questionable expansions.
We need to stop
two very bad bills right now. Please contact your state lawmakers, Sen.
<FIRST> <LAST> and Rep. <FIRST> <LAST>, today. Let them
know what those years of learning mean for your patients. Tell them you oppose
these bills and ask them to help the Texas Medical Association stop them: House
Bill 1415 by Rep. Stephanie Klick (R-Fort Worth)/Senate Bill 681 by Sen. Kelly
Hancock (R-North Richland Hills) would grant APRNs full, independent practice and
prescribing authority.
You can call Senator <LAST> and Representative <LAST> at
their Capitol offices:
·
Senator <LAST>: <CAP PHONE>
·
Representative <LAST>: <CAP PHONE>
Please call or write today. The nurses have been busy drumming up support
for these bills by dramatically downplaying the differences in our education,
skills, and training — and what that means to our patients.
Remember this simple message: We strongly support team-based care, but if
you want to practice medicine, go to medical school.
Sincerely,
Don R. Read, MD
President
Texas Medical Association
TALKING
POINTS
·
I am a physician who lives in your district. I am
writing to express my strong opposition to two bills that would allow
nonphysicians to engage in the practice of medicine. Such a change would not
expand access to health care; it would increase the cost of health care, and it
would not be safe for the people of Texas.
·
Please do not support House Bill 1415 by Klick/Senate
Bill 681 by Hancock, which would grant advanced practice registered nurses
(APRNs) full, independent practice and prescribing authority.
·
I oppose independent practice for APRNs without
collaboration with a physician. To protect patient safety, diagnoses and
prescriptive authority must remain the purview of medicine.
·
Expanding APRNs’ scope of practice will not increase
access to care in rural Texas. In states that do and do not allow APRNs
independent practice, the vast majority of them practice exactly where most
physicians practice — in the metropolitan areas.
·
Expanding APRNs’ scope of practice will increase the
cost of care. Research comparing APRNs with physicians found a 41-percent
increase in hospitalizations and a 25-percent increase in specialty visits
among patients treated in the same setting by APRNs.
·
Please compare the number of patient-care hours
required in training. Physicians like me receive 12,000 to 16,000 hours of
training through medical school and residency. APRNs, however, have just 500 to
720 hours of patient-care hours in their training.
·
Physicians and nurses worked together in 2013 to
devise a landmark state law that improved collaboration and supervision. I
support improvements to the collaboration process and exploring ways to improve
access to care, especially in underserved areas.
·
Physicians strongly support team-based care, but if
you want to practice medicine, go to medical school. Thank you for your
consideration.
[SL1]Deb
– different link
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Telehealth drives up healthcare costs
Telehealth drives up healthcare
utilization and spending
By Maria
Castellucci | March 7, 2017
Modern Medicine
Telehealth, which is frequently
touted as an effective strategy to decrease healthcare spending, may actually
be driving up costs, according to a new study by the RAND Corp.
The report, published Monday in the journal Health Affairs, found that although telehealth appointments are cheaper than in-person and emergency room visits, the online and virtual resources encourage vast new utilization, ultimately driving up healthcare spending.
The findings are a surprise wake-up call as employers increasingly look to offer telehealth services to their workers. About 90% of large employers said they would offer telehealth services as part of their employee health plans in 2017, according to a 2016 survey from the National Business Group on Health.
The study's researchers used 2011-13 claims data from the California Public Employees' Retirement System to dive into telehealth costs. The authors compared the cost and use of telehealth visits and in-person visits for patients seeking treatment for acute respiratory infections, one of the most comment conditions treated via telehealth services.
The researchers found that only 12% of direct-to-consumer telehealth visits replaced a visit to another provider.
The convenience of telemedicine is encouraging people to seek care when they normally wouldn't, said Scott Ashwood, lead author of the report and associate policy researcher at RAND Corp. “You don't even have to go anywhere … you just have to pick up the phone.”
An individual may be less inclined to go see their primary-care doctor or visit the ER if they have the common cold or a high fever. But the easy access and low cost of telemedicine may motivate people to seek a clinical consultation, Ashwood said.
On average, a telemedicine appointment costs about $79 compared to $146 for a doctor's visit and $1,734 for an ER visit, the study found.
RAND Corp. found a similar trend taking place among retail clinics. A study in November 2016 found ERs near retail clinics didn't experience a reduction of visits from patients with low-acuity illnesses.
To discourage telemedicine overutilization, the authors suggested increasing patient cost-sharing for the consultations. This could encourage people to consider more critically what conditions they will seek care for, Ashwood said. “If I have to pay more out of pocket to pick up the phone, maybe I don't,” he said.
The authors also suggested health plans reach out to patients who frequently use the ER and encourage them to use telemedicine services instead. Ashwood said patients with chronic conditions that frequently use the ER for care will effectively decrease spending if they use telemedicine instead.
“We are seeing patients responding (to telemedicine) so there is a benefit to respond to certain populations,” Ashwood said.
The report, published Monday in the journal Health Affairs, found that although telehealth appointments are cheaper than in-person and emergency room visits, the online and virtual resources encourage vast new utilization, ultimately driving up healthcare spending.
The findings are a surprise wake-up call as employers increasingly look to offer telehealth services to their workers. About 90% of large employers said they would offer telehealth services as part of their employee health plans in 2017, according to a 2016 survey from the National Business Group on Health.
The study's researchers used 2011-13 claims data from the California Public Employees' Retirement System to dive into telehealth costs. The authors compared the cost and use of telehealth visits and in-person visits for patients seeking treatment for acute respiratory infections, one of the most comment conditions treated via telehealth services.
The researchers found that only 12% of direct-to-consumer telehealth visits replaced a visit to another provider.
The convenience of telemedicine is encouraging people to seek care when they normally wouldn't, said Scott Ashwood, lead author of the report and associate policy researcher at RAND Corp. “You don't even have to go anywhere … you just have to pick up the phone.”
An individual may be less inclined to go see their primary-care doctor or visit the ER if they have the common cold or a high fever. But the easy access and low cost of telemedicine may motivate people to seek a clinical consultation, Ashwood said.
On average, a telemedicine appointment costs about $79 compared to $146 for a doctor's visit and $1,734 for an ER visit, the study found.
RAND Corp. found a similar trend taking place among retail clinics. A study in November 2016 found ERs near retail clinics didn't experience a reduction of visits from patients with low-acuity illnesses.
To discourage telemedicine overutilization, the authors suggested increasing patient cost-sharing for the consultations. This could encourage people to consider more critically what conditions they will seek care for, Ashwood said. “If I have to pay more out of pocket to pick up the phone, maybe I don't,” he said.
The authors also suggested health plans reach out to patients who frequently use the ER and encourage them to use telemedicine services instead. Ashwood said patients with chronic conditions that frequently use the ER for care will effectively decrease spending if they use telemedicine instead.
“We are seeing patients responding (to telemedicine) so there is a benefit to respond to certain populations,” Ashwood said.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)