|
Subject: Letter to Senator Ron Wyden
California dreaming; have a myriad of lawyers and doctors write to the author of the Health Care Improvement Act of 1986 and get the immunity removed and an unbiased committee of true peers to evaluate one's medical care. Can you improve on the following letter ?
Honorable Senator Ron Wyden, I am a retired surgeon writing you with a desire to get marked changes in the Health Care Improvement Acts of 1986.This act has released an Inquisition on doctors with the opposite effect you desired. With good intentions ethical doctors are in a hell of enslavement to the unethical of business and medicine. The AMA told their members they were against the physicians data bank but then with a quid pro quo for IMMUNITY they supported it. The Inquisition lasted 600 years, from 1104 to 1734. Let us hope doctors are not in for 600 years.
Circumstances have given me a knowledge of over 10,000 physicians subjected to malicious medical peer review characterized by the accusers having total immunity for what I believe are often criminal acts of deliberate false statements, subornation of perjury, altering charts, and libel for financial gain. The destruction of ethical medical practice is shielded by immunity of PL99-660.
You intended an inhibition of malpractice. What now occurs is those controlling the committees can stop any investigation of their activities, and destroy their critics with impunity. At least 70% of medical peer review is done for economic reasons, not for bad medical practice. How can I say this, and prove it?
Before national law, and California's civil code 43.8 giving absolute immunity to knowingly lie existed, I got before a jury proving this, knowingly lying by the hospital CEO and competitors. I was awarded punitive damages. I was naive and did not know such cases were unusual. I just knew my colleagues were arrogantly, stupidly, lying. They admitted the agreed upon lies in court. The jury had no difficulty. Much of the evidence came from the newly established hospital computers and the quality control nurse records, comparing my work with false statements, plus the gross problems of my accusers.
The phones began to ring asking how we had succeeded. My lawyer and I were amazed to discover such a huge problem and we established a society of physicians and lawyers to get unbiased medical peer review. Soon we had 2,000 members, doctors and lawyers.
My colleagues in Organized Medicine were against this. I was part of the AMA and California Medical Association and the county society. I was impressed by the vigor of organized medicine's opposition. They did not want an unbiased jury. It finally dawned on me, established MDs like peer review as an effective way of getting rid of bright young men arriving in their turf taking business away from them. This was the case in Patrick. It is so in overwhelming numbers in medical peer review.
You sponsored PL99-660. About the same time our society, Semmelweis Society, filed and amicus curiae brief for Timothy Patrick in the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling was against "State Action" protection of "shabby, unprincipled, and unprofessional peer review" since there has never been state supervision of medical peer review. This description is from the 9th circuit court opinion. Each hospital is its own fiefdom. Like the U.S. Congress, not all decisions are seen as for the greater good by all members. The disputes are vigorous and very costly.
The Patrick case remains a template of medical peer review, as does my case of 1984. The 10,000 doctors I have talked to, many face to face, have chillingly similar stories. Many much worse. Suicide is not unknown, and even one murder. I have been the requested speaker on this at three yearly meetings of the American College of Legal Medicine (granted honorary membership). I have been a speaker at the emergency room physicians yearly meeting, and for the American College of International Physicians. The American College of Surgeons allowed me a free booth at their yearly meetings (9,000 attending) and the interest in this exhibit was considerable. On request, I wrote an editorial in the July American Journal of Surgery for 1994. Over 25% of the face to face meetings occurred with surgeons. At the CMA yearly meetings another 25% occurred. I have testified in Federal Courts six times and had favorable results in some. Judges tend to be appalled, but do not like to rule on antitrust grounds.
The criminal and huge fraud convictions of Columbia Health, Blue Shield, Blue Cross, and many others, perhaps will allow recognition of the evil in over 50% of our hospitals, and nationwide.
I retired in 1997, having contributed my part. Recently I have had a great surge in calls for help and more medical journals and leaders are appalled. Now who will take action? Willie Sutton robbed banks since "that's were the money is". Hence the politicians are turned too for their power.
I have had a revealing stint as a staff elected member of "my" local hospital Board of Directors. Here I quickly discovered an attempt to divert 79.6 million dollars of tax exempted hospital foundation money (out of 150 million) to a select few of the Board members. I got help from the FTC, and following their advice, documented this and the diversion is outlined in their own documents. The nation wide enormity of the problem is represented by the fines Columbia Health is paying for fraudulent billing of 745 million and 96 million for criminal acts. A paltry thousand dollars can buy the soul of most people.
Enclosed are some pertinent documents. A 1990 speech of mine is on my website at www.tripod.com The account is vwaitemdfacs, the password is "unbiased". My email address vssemel@hotmail.com. I am not computer literate and others have gotten me involved. I wish to get some of the lawyers to edit and improve my appeal to you.
Doctors on the committees usually do not read the charts since a committee appointed by the accusers, as is the judge, has a forgone verdict. The needed change is a mandated outside jury with NO ties to the hospital or accused or accuser. Why bother to read the charts - why should they, it is a Kangaroo court with the verdict assured. Patrick and Waite had the right to a jury trial. So the laws were changed. Drug dealers and murders have unbiased juries, doctors do not. HICFA billing regulations overwhelm doctors. The third parties removal would allow a 2/3rs reduction in cost. It is better to run a 7-11 store and deal with the robbers directly.
Yours truly,
Verner S. Waite MD FACS
|
