New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct: are its policies and performance becoming a political liability?—Part 4

Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients,  Oct, 2002  by Marcus A. Cohen

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

"We do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that the state is abusing its power to discipline physicians and, if it is, that the only remedy is to amend existing statute, especially if to do so may serve to put patients in harm's way. The premise behind this bill is that physicians have suffered inappropriately as a result of the state's abusive exercise of its statutory power to discipline licensees for misconduct. Further, the bill implies that such abuse can only be remedied by legislating more due process protections for physician licensees even at the possible expense of patient safety." --Joint statement in opposition to Assembly bill 11330 by the Senior Action Council of New York State, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), the Center for Medical Consumers, the Patient Information Alliance, et al.

Who Killed OPMC Reform in 2002?

Another Article on New York's OPMC? Since August, 2001, the Townsend Letter has published three installments of a 5-part report about the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC). (1) This New York State agency investigates, tries, and disciplines physicians and physician assistants for professional misconduct.

The three previous installments documented the history of the OPMC in light of the following criticisms. The agency doesn't follow up and dispose of complaints quickly enough. It nabs far less than the number of physicians thought to be harming patients (according to estimates of the percentage of incompetent or negligent doctors in the total New York physician population). (2) Its investigations and prosecutions show pervasive disregard for due process protections statutorily accorded defendants in administrative proceedings. Recommendations for punishment or acquittal by OPMC hearing panels often appear inconsistent or capricious. Agency investigators, prosecutors, and panelists seem prejudiced against MDs who deviate from community practice by offering "minority" treatments. (3)

Allegations of inept performance and unfair proceedings date to the first years of the OPMC's operation, just after its establishment in 1975 in the New York State Department of Health (DOH). Despite infusions of operating funds and personnel, even after legislative reforms increasing its power, these criticisms have periodically occurred (4) The latest barrage of criticism initially surfaced in the press in 2000, (5) and came to a head with a hearing by the New York State Assembly this January. In June, based on testimony at that hearing, (6) the Assembly unanimously passed a package of reforms aimed at getting the OPMC to observe all the due process protections required under state administrative law. (The Senate sat on its hands.)

That the OPMC's performance has troubled many people over the past 25 years is sufficient reason to shine a spotlight on it -- and to keep the light on for as long as it takes to raise public awareness of the manner in which this agency has operated.

The legislative committees supervising the OPMC have faulted it for sloppy investigations and backlogged cases. The agency's errant behavior has raised eyebrows at the New York State and New York City bar associations, its conviction rate has dissatisfied organizations who represent medical consumers. Certain of its mild penalties have outraged members of the public who want doctors maiming or killing patients barred from practice. It has ticked off groups of patients who believe the agency targets their doctors solely because they use minority approaches. (7)

Perhaps the best reasons are that few members of the public know how much power the OPMC has over the quality of medical care, over access to plausible therapeutic alternatives when standard treatments fail. And that fewer still witness the agency's trials. And even fewer attend the very infrequent legislative hearings on the agency's conduct or attempt to obtain transcripts of those hearings.

FAIM Again Denounces the OPMC. The Townsend Letter ran two additional pieces critical of the OPMC in its August/September issue. The first titled "The Shame of America," offers background on the OPMC's recent revocation of Dr. Serafina Corsello's license,

It defines her specialty: "treating chronic conditions with alternative and complementary therapies" (CAM), among them; "antioxidant intravenous infusions, chelation,...nutritional supplementation, energy balancing, acupuncture, stress management...as applicable to the patient's condition."

It gives Dr. Corsello's credentials. (To cite the most impressive: she was "one of the 25 doctors chosen by the National Institutes of Health to participate in the formation of the Office of Alternative Medicine").

Why, given her reputation for CAM approaches generally regarded as safe, did New York's "medical police" yank Corsello's license? The sheet's answer: "The OPMC represents...the closed-minded and reactionary attitude of the allopathic medical community, which stands to lose millions of dollars to the CAM community.... That is the ultimate issue: money. The OPMC is trying to set a precedent that will deny patients any options other than allopathic care, so that the doctors who engage in 'accepted medical practice' will not face financial loss."