AMA joining as Plaintiffs
One of the economic credentialing cases in the US is taking place in Little Rock, Ark. I blogged about this issue several months ago this case is currently underway. NA Health: September 2007
The AMA and the Arkansas Medical Society have intervened as additional plaintiffs in the lawsuit and will be providing financial assistance to the cardiologists as well as other services in an effort to win this important case.
As you may or may not recall, this case challenges the economic credentialing policy of Baptist Health, the largest hospital system in Arkansas.
The current policy prevents physicians who have an interest in a specialty hospital which Baptist claims is a competitor from having privileges at Baptist. In Little Rock Cardiology Clinic v. Baptist Health. The cardiologist, AMA and the medical society argue that Baptist’s policy is overbroad and unnecessarily interferes with the physician-patient relationship by preventing patients from receiving care from their cardiologists.
AMA policy states that credentialing decisions should be made based on a physician’s qualifications and competencies, not on economic considerations unrelated to patient care.
The trial is expected to last through next week and we will await the final decision of the courts because it will have broad ramifications.
The AMA and the Arkansas Medical Society have intervened as additional plaintiffs in the lawsuit and will be providing financial assistance to the cardiologists as well as other services in an effort to win this important case.
As you may or may not recall, this case challenges the economic credentialing policy of Baptist Health, the largest hospital system in Arkansas.
The current policy prevents physicians who have an interest in a specialty hospital which Baptist claims is a competitor from having privileges at Baptist. In Little Rock Cardiology Clinic v. Baptist Health. The cardiologist, AMA and the medical society argue that Baptist’s policy is overbroad and unnecessarily interferes with the physician-patient relationship by preventing patients from receiving care from their cardiologists.
AMA policy states that credentialing decisions should be made based on a physician’s qualifications and competencies, not on economic considerations unrelated to patient care.
The trial is expected to last through next week and we will await the final decision of the courts because it will have broad ramifications.
Labels: credentialing, economic, healthcare, Heart Hospital
posted by Anonymous at 5:39 AM
17 Comments:
This looks like something very important to a doctor planning to invest in a facility that will compete with a hospital with which he is currently affiliated.
No wonder you are watching it so closely.
HB has stated more than once that neither he nor anyone in his family has affiliation with any of the competing entities.
Why do you continue to sling accusations?
Are you still holding a grudge that HB and this blog was one of the key factors that brought down the previous CEO?
I bet it just really causes you distress to know HB was right all along.
Halleluah, there is a new day dawning at Floyd. The employees are grateful to HB and we look forward to working with our new CEO.
Let's try this one more time.
I do not have any financial interest in the heart hospital, the surgical center, the radiology center or any other competing entity.
I know of no family member that has any interest in any of these either.
It is really tiring answering the same accusations over and over from an obviously frustrated anonymous blogger who has some underlying grudge.
I agree with the last blogger that it will be very nice when all remnants of the previous CEO are eliminated from the hospital along with the pathologic thinking that led us here.
What does the previous CEO have to do with anything said here. It was well established some time ago that, while serving on the board at Floyd, you were on the way to investing in the new "doctor owned" hospital until it was pointed out to you that it constituted a conflict of interest. Let's be careful when sitting up too straight on your high horse.
I hesitate to bring this up, because it is in no way an attempt to "stir" the pot. But I am curious. Last Friday there was a retirement reception for the former CEO. It was very obvious that few physicians were present...just a couple of retired ones. My question is: Was there a different reception held for the physicians? If not, were they invited to Friday's reception?
I can tell you with certainty because I was there.
Very few physicians showed up and they were invited.
Some were even being caught in the hallways as they were leaving and asked to come in.
It did show the true discontent the Medical Staff had for the CEO.
You reap what you sow and BH left a legacy of distrust, broken relationships, dishonor and malevolence. The turnout was representative of what he created.
I, too, was there and couldn't help but noticing at BH's reception that Geri Quillman didn't seem like herself either. Are her days numbered as well? Or was she just showing stress because she was the one who had to serve as the hostess and was just responding to the uncomfortable turnout. There was a fairly large crowd, but a whole lot of people were missing, such as previous board members and leaders in the community,...not just physicians were absent. Was this the only reception that Bryant had?
It wasn't much different during the in-house reception for employees.
Managers and Directors had to tell their employees to attend and BH was passing out doughnuts trying to entice employees to come in.
What a sad little man
How does the number of people attending a reception for the previous CEO fit into a discussion of Dan Eichenberger's intended disloyalty while serving on the board of the hospital? The whole time he was professing his love for the hospital and its employees, he was planning an investment in a competing hospital. How is that for honesty and integrity???
Dan, are you now defining folks who disagree with you as "remnants of the previous CEO"? And what the heck is a "remnant" of the previous CEO that needs to be eliminated?
you people need to drop this.
There is a new CEO and we are happy about it.
everything about the prior CEO needs to be eliminated. I don't care what you call it; remnant, policies, style, or anything else.
There is also no disloyalty other than unfounded accusations by anonymous posters and from the previous CEO from what I hear. This in itself speaks volumes about his disfunction.
What about the $20 million dollar loss, and the administrations bonuses based on this. Did the CEO give any of that money back for the benefit of Floyd. What was his retirement package? I'd bet it was not looking after Floyd's benefit.
HB is still working and participating in getting this hospital back on good standing while BH is reaping the benefit of his mismanagement and his "Retirement"
Regarding, "There is also no disloyalty other than unfounded accusations by anonymous posters and from the previous CEO from what I hear."
I think you heard wrong. Several board members at the time have commented about the incident and that Dr. Dan had no intention of backing down on his plan to invest in the new hospital until the hospital attorney and other board members called him out on the conflict of interest. I am afraid the good doctor is a lot better at identifying character flaws in others than in himself.
again, I know with firsthand certainty that your last comments are incorrect and misrepresented but that is what we have dealt with for the past several years.
OK, ANONYMOUS 12:25, would you like to explain how you know "first hand" that the information is incorrect? Several board members made no secret of their frustration with Dr. H over this issue so I would be interested to hear how you know otherwise.
Looks as if both anonymous posters have hidden agendas and identities.
Both should let the readers know their identities and their relationship with the Board and Administration if they want to be fair.
Funny how it works both ways, isn't it????
Drop it people. Let's move on!
Both "sides" have had flaws. BH - loss of $, loss of JCAHO accreditation, and less than par physician relations. HB - (initially) anonymous as the 'healthblogger' while bad-mouthing the hospital, admitted possibility of investing in competitor hospital while holding a d&o position at floyd, inappropriate statements about the hospital and it's leadership especially on the patient units to staff. Again, let's move on!
Post a Comment
<< Home