Medical oversight board needs a remedy
Few relationships are as intimate as those between patient and doctor. So when that relationship is compromised, patients need to be able to shift that trust to the people who hold doctors accountable. A new report suggests the Connecticut Medical Examining Board could do a better job of handling and resolving complaints against doctors in the state, which can range from flawed treatments to whether they were practicing under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the founder and senior adviser of the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, which produced the report, makes the alarming claim that “tens of thousands of parties are exposed to doctors who should not be practicing.”
It’s easy to get lost in the numbers. Stamford attorney Kathryn Emmett, who chairs the Connecticut board, told the Connecticut Health I-Team, that the study’s comparison of how states discipline doctors is not a level yardstick.
It’s a fair point, but that doesn’t erase that the report sounds the alarm on a string of issues that demand deeper discussion. Investigations into claims of medical wrongdoing can take years to resolve. Not all accused physicians are guilty, but those who are can often continue harming more patients in the meantime. There can be serious medical consequences when these issues are not addressed.
There can also be resistance to being too critical of a panel such as the Connecticut Medical Examining Board, as the members are unpaid and absent of staff and funding.
That bears repeating: These are volunteer board members with no funding or staff.
But if that means the system isn’t working, there needs to be a new system.
A call for a reboot came from within the board. Longtime board member Jean Rexford, who is also the founder of the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety, voiced concerns that led to the formation of a working group within the board. The sessions of that group have remained closed to the public because the State Department of Health deemed them administrative.
While the privacy of patients must be preserved, there is clearly a need for more transparency in this process.
Rexford is not alone. Another board member, Michele Jacklin, called the board “impotent and toothless” compared to ones in other states.
The Connecticut Health I-Team’s reporting uncovers several issues that warrant reform. Board members should be getting some training before assuming such heavy responsibilities.
Such problems are not unique to Connecticut. There should, for example, be consistency in the fines that are issued.
The current system counts on patients to blow the whistle. As a result, it is reactive rather than proactive. Outreach to shield the public can come in many forms, such as monitoring appropriate communication from health officials regarding COVID-19 protocol.
The last thing Connecticut needs is more bureaucracy, another layer of watchmen. But lawmakers should get involved to assess whether this panel is meeting its mission.
It needs to diagnose the problem, then administer a cure.
A new report suggests the Connecticut Medical Examining Board could do a better job of handling and resolving complaints against doctors in the state.