E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Obama administration has closed public access to its database of disciplinary action against doctors and other medical professionals, basically because reporters were getting too good at using it.
The Department of Health and Human Services compiles a National Practitioner Data Bank to centralize reports on malpractice cases and licensing board actions against individual doctors and health care companies. The idea is to make it harder for practitioners who've been hit with disciplinary actions or malpractice judgments to move to other states and get new licenses.
Four times a year, HHS has published a version of the database to the public. Because the database is supposed to be confidential, it's scrubbed of names, addresses and other information that patients, lawyers and reporters could use to identify who's in it. Still, because it provides a wealth of aggregate information, the quarterly summary has been a regular source of medical stories for a quarter-century. (As recently as June, the database was generating stories like this one, reporting that half of U.S. malpractice payments involve patients seen outside a hospital.)
Or at least it did until this month, when HHS' Health Resources and Services Administration added this sentence to the databank's Web page:
The NPDB Public Use Data File is not available until further notice.
The Kansas City Star says it's largely to blame, reporting that HRSA took the action "shortly after it learned The Kansas City Star planned to use its reports" for a story on doctors who have frequently been accused of malpractice but who have escaped the attention of the Kansas or Missouri medical boards.
An HRSA spokesman told the Star that while the agency was bound by federal law to keep the data confidential, reporters had been able to "triangulate on data bank data" to put names to reports.
Journalism and health care advocacy groups said they were troubled by what they characterized as a retreat from government openness by the Obama administration.
Three of them — the Association of Health Care Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists — fired off a letter to the administration (.pdf) protesting removal of "a data resource that has been available for years to the general public, the media and researchers" and what they characterized as HRSA's "intimidation" of a Star reporter, citing a letter the agency sent to the paper (.pdf).
HRSA told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by e-mail that it is reviewing its procedures for "disclosing information in a form that does not permit the identification of any particular health care entity, physician, other health care practitioner, or patient." It said public access could resume after "a thorough analysis of the data fields" to ensure confidentiality.
Leave a Comment:
But I thought Obama wanted a "Transparent" Government?!?!?!?
If this had been Bush, Feisty and her cohorts would have been all over this!
XXY agreed. How are the libs gonna spin this
How are the libs gonna spin this
We don't need to. It is what it is, and it's wrong.
Bravo. We can agree.
Give the consumer the info and let the market decide. The issue of tort reform will be moot. Instead someone has something to hide.
I don't see health care as a market. I'm not a piece of cattle. You don't get into health care to play the market.
Yes all information should be public. After all ours is. There is no this side or that side. We are being screwed by both sides.
To commonsensedude: This is not a black / white, conservative / liberal issue. Liberals are just as disgusted as conservatives that our "right to know" has been abbridged by this order. Open your mind to things that are not part of your political ideology, dude. Wake up and start USING that common sense you claim as your tag!
Obamy loves this: No need for death panels...he just protects the bad doctors, and lets them kill people directly. It cuts out the middle man.
You are an effing idiot. People like you can never be reached because all want to do is believe every one not as stupid as you must be wrong...so you just spout stupid crap as if everything bad in the world is the fault of liberals and Obama. You are a complete tool.
This action is outrageous, a direct attack on the safety of the public. What a disgrace for the politicians to claim a commitment to transparency yet hide the truth to protect the group causing the injuries. Anyone connected to this action should be cashiered and the decision reversed.
If the Obama administration wanted a more transparent Government then they would not be persecuting groups like Wikileaks and Anonymous. Information is power and our Government wants us to have as little power as possible.
What?
It’s a matter of Federal law, which Congress needs to change immediately. Criminals names are fair
game in the press, these "doctors" were found guilty of malpractice, which the information SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
The public should have access to this information...as consumers they have a right to know, and the identities of those convicted of malpractice, etc. should not be hidden either...the database should make all of this public record. In fact, of all public records and information, the past conduct of healthcare workers and facilities, whom are entrusted with the very lives and well being of consumers, is one of the most important data bases that the public should have access to. Why is the government withholding this information as they join in protecting the inept and negligent providers instead of the innocent consumers who can become future victims? Totally disgusting...healthcare has moved into the corporate sector and become big business with a profit priority taking the place of a once service minded industry...so I guess it shows who pulls the government strings, once again. Very sad that this move comes from a president who many of us voted for due to his "openness, transparency, and government for the people" campaign platform.
This may land in the "invasion of privacy" zone, which I can understand, since those doctors that have ever had a malpractice suit filed against them can be seriously harassed by those who think he is a bad doctor, even if the doctor in question has truly changed from his or her malpractice ways or had only that one malpractice suit in the 10-15 years of experience. I think that this kind of information is perfectly fine to not be released to the people.
Also, making the list public is not making the government more transparent. It is making people's lives transparent, which the government should never do.
This is not right. The people, the public needs to know which ones to avoid and which ones to go to.
What was done here in the Obama administration is wrong, wrong, wrong, and this needs to be stopped.
I feel that since he and this administration did this, the next time someone ends up dead or seriously injured, then we should be allowed to sue his sorry azz for making such a stupid decision on the public's safety. He should be held accountable for and injuries or deaths caused by an incompetent doctor.
I've got some really bad news for AlMightyDollar. You are cattle! That ship sailed a long time ago. You are part of an insane system where Insurance CEO's make millions of dollars denying you needed medical care and call it a healthcare system. Try the healthcare system as a cancer patient. After paying through the nose every month for twenty years, for one of those "Cadillac Health care plans, I was dropped from my plan ten days after being diagnosed with lung cancer. "For procedural reasons not related to my illness". Nothing was wrong with the procedure for the twenty years they took my money. You think you have health insurance? Try to really use it. Yeah, they paid for this and that over the years, but when they saw me costing six figures, it was suddenly "What have you done for us lately?" You want to know who paid for my cancer surgery? You did! I had to run down to Medicare and get a policy. After twenty years of premiums, my insurance company made you pay for my surgery. My threatened lawsuit got me covered for what Medicare didn't pay, so I did OK. But YOU got stuck for 80% of the bill by an insurance company. If "Obamacare" is socialism, then let's be socialists. It can't be more expensive.
We all were made aware, a few years back, when stockholder groups started suing corporate boards for not maximizing profits. If a board can be sued by the stockholders for not maximizing profits, where does your care enter the equation? Certainly not anywhere near the top. A healthcare corporation is an oxymoron, Period! I can't wait until all you tea baggers, who are carrying water for the insurance companies, end up on the table and find out that the insurance you paid for all those years doesn't mean squat. From my experience, the tipping point is where the lawyers are cheaper than you are.
Healthcare? Yeah sure. Socialism? Yeah sure. Wait until it's your ass. Do you really think they'll make an exception because you're a tea bagger? Good luck with that one.
As a physician with 33 years clinical experience in private, academic and military practice, I am as disgusted as everyone else over the denial of access to the NPDB. The whole idea of a central data bank was to allow general access for the public to identify incompetent or unethical physicians, both to give consumers freedom of informed choice and as a matter of patient safety. The data was also accessed by state medical boards to identify "border jumping" physicians who faced disciplinary action in one state and tried to evade responsibility by simply re-locating their practices to another state, but this was NOT its primary intent. Certainly a physician can very innocently violate standards of practice, face board review, and even be disciplined and still be an ethical, competent physician/surgeon, but that is for the individual consumer to decided when choosing who will administer their care. For this or any administration to deny access to this information is an absolutely disgusting abuse of power. I doubt it will survive the first court challenge.
Agdoc; yes you are right a person should be able to look things up and decide who they want for their doctor. I am a retired RN and know a lot of the doctors in our area, and for sure I know some I would not go to, because of their lack either of education or caring. I travel 78 miles to my doctor because I know he is good. I am one of the lucky ones that know the doctors and who to go to and who not to go to. The public should also know where they can look up doctors. Yes some can innocently violate standards of practice and be brought before the board. If a person can read they would know that was what it was and not hold it against the doctor. I respect a physician that will say I don't know or will look it up or send to someone in that field. There was one Physician I loved to make rounds with, as after leaving the room could ask him question and why. He would explain and teach. I learned a lot from him in the field where I worked. This in turn made me a better nurse and able to spot things and call him. Sometimes it was something that could Waite till he got there and would tell him what I saw. It is a win win situation when you have a physician who will help teach the nurses. But people need to know how to look up their doctors.
Health care might cost less if people knew the names of bad doctors, and could choose to avoid them. It is a good doctor who must clean up after a bad one, and both the bungled surgery and the corrective procedure cost money. Another way to avoid bad doctors is to research good ones through, e.g., Dr. Andrew Weil's Integrative Medicine Program at University of Arizona, which lists "fellows" who have completed the integrative program, which embraces all the specialties. So you can go to that site and look for a particular kind of specialist nearest your zip code. Still, it would be best of the bad list could be published and people could rule those guys out right away.
I could not agree with you more, this is what I was thinking (but could not help myself with the first post).
Thanks for the info on a way to look up good doctors.
If the government really wanted to do something about health care costs in this country, they would publish a list of all doctors who have had malpractice payments made on their behalf along with the circumstances of those payments. People would stop going to these doctors and malpractice premiums would likely drop considerably. A reduction in malpractice premiums would definitely help bring down the cost of health care since the premiums are one of the single largest expenses many doctors have in their practice. In addition, avoiding botched procedures would help reduce the need for follow on procedures to correct the original mistakes as well as eliminate the extra care required to treat the additional problems caused by the mistakes. These factors could really help reduce health care costs and the only expense would be removing about 2% of the doctors in the country who should probably not be practicing in the first place.
Thank you, JS in SD! Such lists are published about attorneys and any who hold contracting licenses, and that helps people who are seeking legal or construction services from choosing unscrupulous practitioners. The AMA and its very powerful (and monied) lobbiests are certainly responsible in part for this errant decision on the part of the President. I believe, as you, JS, that by exposing unscrupulous doctors to the public's eye would save this nation's tax payers millions of dollars in fraudulent payments, overbilling, double-billing, and unnecessary billing. Having come from a family of medical doctors who actually practiced medical ethics and refused to "skim" from Medicare and MedicAide, I know how disgusted they were with reports of scheister doctors who would exercise a grand lack of ethics in their professions. Exposure and complete transparency would, as you stated, solve many of the problems and reduce the national medical expense. Such exposure is certainly used in the teaching profession, and when a teacher is found guilty of unethical practices, their offenses are published. Doctors (and hospitals) should not be exceptions to the rule.
Ya know something really bad when the lawyers look good.
This is wrong, seriously wrong. I spent 10 years working in Hospitals and Nursing Homes... There are hundreds if not thousands of very bad Doctors out there preying on the human kind and hurting them on a regular basis...
Sort of like what Obama and the Demoncrats are doing to the American people so I can understand why the Obama Administration did this...
And of course, along with the millions he expects in return for his Poltiical Campaign....Remember with Obama, and Demoncrats as a group,,,to find the truth, you have to follow the money trail....and then the truth shall set you free...
I have a list of doctors and nurses they can add to that list.
My parents had always placed their doctors on pedestals. They could do no wrong and were just about perfect in their eyes. I told my mother that doctors are just like plumbers, electricians and carpenters..................there are good ones, mediocre ones and really bad ones.
I have no doubt that that is what there doing. But do you really believe the republicans are not doing the very same thing?
By all means...follow the money trail. Just don't be too surprised of your own precious party is even more culpable than the current administration!
More culpable? Hmmm, seems like your own bias is shown here...how about EQUALY culpable? Doesn't that sound more reasonable? This isn't purely a political issue. The government, in general, has a vested interest in keeping certain types of information away from the public. If people actually knew about the level of corruption on the global level, you would see riots 100 times the size of what the "Arab Spring" brought.....collusion and corruption at the global level will be the next major cause of a world war...between the haves and the have nots.
It doesn't matter which party it is those with money will always protect, and support others with money.
Medical malpractice claims do not always represent the competency of physicians. Malpractice claims are filed for a number of reasons and often settled for many reasons which may have nothing to do whether malpractice actually occurred. It is often cheaper to settle a case than pursue it in court. Many states have websites that list the number of malpractice cases that a doctor has settled or lost. However, as those states site, that should only be one component of determining whether a doctor is "good" or "bad". Many of the sites also list whether the doctor has been disciplined by the state licensing boards, hospitals, criminal convictions, or health care agencies. If you choose a doctor based solely on malpractice history, you may very well miss an opportunity for excellent care. This is often the case in high risk areas such as obstetrics and neurosurgery.
voyager68 -- Just don't hide the information from us. We'll then make up our own minds on what's important. The government wants to keep us in the dark; we need to put them in the unemployment line.
Medical malpractice claims do not always represent the competency of physicians. Malpractice claims are filed for a number of reasons and often settled for many reasons which may have nothing to do whether malpractice actually occurred. It is often cheaper to settle a case than pursue it in court. Many states have websites that list the number of malpractice cases that a doctor has settled or lost. However, as those states site, that should only be one component of determining whether a doctor is "good" or "bad". Many of the sites also list whether the doctor has been disciplined by the state licensing boards, hospitals, criminal convictions, or health care agencies. If you choose a doctor based solely on malpractice history, you may very well miss an opportunity for excellent care. This is often the case in high risk areas such as obstetrics and neurosurgery.
In recent years, I've noticed a trend in which criminals convicted of financially-based crimes like embezzlement, large-scale tax evasion, Ponzi schemes (especially) are getting sentenced to large amounts of time on a scale comparable to murder (at the extreme end) but that lots of other violent crimes, or crimes against people that leave them traumatized, disabled, etc. are getting off very light in comparison. Since when has the illicit taking of money become more serious and important and therefore punished more severely than the taking of human life, or the destruction and disfigurement of human life? Why are the financial offenders being punished more severely than the violent offenders? Including bad doctors, fraudulent, incompetent, unlicensed, etc. Now, one of our last remaining forms of "quality control" the informative lists of bad doctors has been taken away from the general public. But you can bet that this very same information is probably not even considered as important as are the listings of financial cheats, embezzlers, high end Ponzi schemes, etc. The message I'm getting here is that more priority is given to money than to human lives.
So if Doctor X killed patient Y because he had a drinking problem, or was a pedophile, or was known to do unneeded and risky surgeries, we the public don't have a right to know? I would like to know why...sex offenders have to make their names public, and if you're a felon on parole, you have to at least give notice where you live to the appropriate authorities.
And this is one of the factors as why health care is so atrocious...by letting these free-floating Kevorkians run free, malpractice suits jack up insurance, which is passed to us. And Heaven help the poor soul at the wrong end of the surgeon's knife of one of these guys.
If they have nothing to be afraid of, they should keep that wall of shame wide open...otherwise, people will get other ideals...and nothing good will come of it.
I am sure we will remember in nov at the polls.
I agree with you that the sorts of things that you list in your post should be made public. I also believe that doctor's malpractice histories should be made public. In addition any disciplinary action taken by licensing boards and hospitals or health care agencies should be made public. These things, even more than malpractice claims/suits, may provide even more information about a doctor's character and competence. Many good doctors have been sued. It is also helpful to ask friends and families who they see and like. I think one of the reasons the site in the article was taken down was that there was a "fishing" expedition by certain individuals that may not have been used in the correct way.
Who is Obama reallY? I'd love to show what happened to me and how I've written extensively to Obama about calling for an investigation to no avail. Most of these incidents are never made public. Look at England's papers. Almost every day there is something about a healthcare event that is being made public. Not so in the U.S. 200,000 American deaths per year due to preventable medical error, and all we hear about is the threat that Al Quaeda poses. That is a commercial airliner full of people that goes down every day. I've not heard of one arrest by the Justice Dept. and the FBI except someone selling too many wheelchairs. Any patterns by a doctor or hospital? Is Obama and his Justice Dept. leaving it up to the states to decide accountability? States rights versus civil rights?
If there was real tort reform I would be completely against this. As it is this list shouldn't be out there for the public. Right now if someone claims malpractice it can take 5 years to get your name dropped from the case even if the doctor was only documented as present in the room as a medical resident - not even providing care to the patient. Where is the same list for other professionals like lawyers, engineers, bankers, politicians etc.
And now we know why the teabaggers keep pushing tort reform instead of universal health care.
Gee Toasty, I'd think someone with your high morals threshold wouldn't stoop to name calling - and don't even consider bringing up that lame arguement that they started the term - you know exactly your intent here.
Chuck in Olathe
Yeppers! Here we go again with Toasty. He name-calls and thinks it alright for him to do so, but then CRIES foul, if HE gets called-out on it, and then, he gets his little feelings hurt. Next step that he takes, is to try to spin and twist other posters comments and to continue to belittle and name-call other Newsviners. Just wait and see as to what happens next!
He doesn't make opinions or rationale comments, he acts and behaves like a bitter old soul with problems.
I know Your mindset Toasty.
Hello Leiya;
You're correct of course. I noticed yesterday on another thread that when it came to backing up his claims he did a first class job of ignoring the question or simply disappearing. Either way is just fine with me - it invalidates his opinion when he does.
Here he's attacked a group of conservatives without actually saying why. He slammed tort reform but didn't offer any reasoning. Tort reform would reduce the cost of Doctors providing services because it would reduce their overhead exponentially and lower the cost of health care.
Universal healthcare - ahhhh what a horribly bad plan Obama has offered up - and at the top of my list for Reasons to Dump Obama in 2012. It's no wonder Toasty doesn't hang around - he'd get buried. No doubt he wants the same goverment that has proven time and again they cannot operate any business, fund or program without screwing it up - Postal Service, Medicare, Social Security to start the list. Great idea Toasty - let Obama run health care. It will be the coup de grace (that means "death blow" Toasty) for our dying economy.
This dog don't hunt by any stretch of the imagination, it sure as hell doesn't pass the stink test. Where the hell is the transparency and the peoples right to know ? This country has become second-rate in most things and I guess our government just can't get anything right.
By law that was enacted years ago the information in the databank is to be confidential. The KC Star seeks to circumvent the law. The administration is required to comply and enforce all laws -even when it may not agree with it.
The data base itself if highly flawed for the reaseons that have been mentioned by others. If you want to know if your doctor has been sued you can just go to the website for the clerk of the county court where your doc is located. Most counties have basic case information available on-line.
RDH -- Much harder to find , why not make it easy? And , what if your doctor was sued in another county or state and later moved to your local. Then you would not find him listed in your county database. Don't try to cover for this attempt to keep the public in the dark.
Funny, bad contractors are a matter of record and all they can do is screw up your home. Doctors can kill you and the fact they are inept is kept a secret?
Rather funny that the doctor who is in question is copied by name o the DHS letter demanding that the newspaper keep information private.
And sad that our government, which ostensibly wants to reduce healthcare costs, is keeping precisely the kind of information hidden that could enable consumers to make safer and more cost effective decisions.
This is the same as Obama giving the unions entitlements out of our taxes to support lazy workers and make it near impossible to get rid of them.
Can`t wait for the election. People are fed up with this clown and his posse.
Is it possible to have a problem with a tooth, such as a cavity in a tooth that has already
had a root canal and you go to the dentist and are told yes you need some teeth
pulled, 7 to be exact and then after having the teeth pulled you find out the
one that was giving you the pain is still in your mouth? When asked why the
dentist tells you he doesn't do root canals. So I went to anther dentist that
does and he tells me the tooth is beyond repair and needs to come out. After
using all my insurance money to have the teeth and tooth I thought taken care
of I am told I need to have 2 more removed and the insurance won't pay for it
for another year. What am I supposed to do?
Great, not only are we saddled with the worst idea for health care ever designed, now we get this. Thanks Obama - see you in the voting booth next year.
Obama is the best Republican president since Clinton.
I'd like to know if a doctor I plan to use killed or neglected a patient, leading to his/her death. Why can't I have access to that?
Why are attorneys' disciplinary records public but not doctors' records?
Well, guess the public will just have to find other ways to seek justice and share with the public information being kept hidden by the government.
http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXEexlDZL_0
Or, just Google WHY DID YOU DROP THE BALL DR ANDRADE?
The article states that the names of the doctors were ALWAYS kept confidential (by law). No names were on the list. It was only after the reporters found a way to "triangulate the data" to assign names to the reported doctors on the list that the government stepped in (because of the LAW). Did anyone actually READ the article? Where were you all when the LAW was passed to keep the doctors names confidential (long predating this particular action)? That is what I would like to see re-written. Follow the money. Who would want the names of these "bad doctors" kept confidential?
Wake up........
Yoshi
Why gather the info if not so people can defend themselves against pushers of a faulty product e.g. incompetent doctors who do nothing but prove that incompetence over and over? Why have public wanted posters if you don't want people to help catch criminals? Some of these doctors do know better and if you don't want them moving from state to state (like the government claims) then giving people tools to guard themselves by identifying quacks would certainly help. Not many people would actually go to these quacks for vastly discounted services if that's what they're worried about because A: They could die and B: the quacks don't want to practice at such a discounted rate that going to them would be so appealing.
I wonder if this is an area the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have any jurisdiction over? Particularly for consumers who pay out-of-pocket for poorly performed procedures.
Guess that Freedom of Information Act was a joke after all.