Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi has disclosed that she has a benign brain tumor that her attorney reportedly said "clouded her judgment," Mintz and Harmon, Bay Area News Group, 1/07/12. The report implies that the benign brain tumor contributed to the lapse that allowed her to walk out of Nieman-Marcus with unpaid merchandise and for which she has been convicted of a misdemeanor. We sadly acknowledge the Assemblywoman's plight and wish her well for the future.
In the meantime we've been asked how her situation compares to the situation endured by Sen. Ted Kennedy whose brain tumor was malignant and caused occasional convulsions. Kennedy's condition was inevitably fatal whereas Hayashi's is benign. The latest word from her attorney is that "it is being treated. It's no longer affecting her concentration or her judgment" (Daily Post, Jan. 7-8, 2012). Unfortunately, this statement implies that Hayashi's judgment was previously impaired during which time she authored two poorly drafted legislative bills that Gov. Brown has since signed into law (see our previous blogs).
Because the legal charge against Hayashi was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor she will be able to keep her assembly seat and finish her term. She will pay a fine, do three years of probation, and stay at least 50 feet away from the Neiman-Marcus store. Her carelessness in creating legislation is documented well enough to repeat here.
Re AB 25 (Hayashi, re brain concussions):
This bill is now law thanks to Gov. Brown's signature. It means that athletes who sustain apparent concussions on the field must be withdrawn from play and not allowed to return until they're judged able to do so by somebody designated to make such judgments but not necessarily including neurological or neurosurgical specialists. Prior to passage of this law, healthcare professionals were at risk for civil liability better known as malpractice for wrongful decisions resulting in harm to players. Since many doctors undertook this responsibility on a pro bono (unpaid) basis, parents, schools, and teams often cut a little slack in the process. Not so anymore because the issue has now been raised to one of criminal liability. It is no longer just a civil matter to make a mistake. It is now a matter of potential criminal liability. High schools are unlikely to afford putting in place optimal protective measures, e.g., an on-site neurological specialist, ambulances and EMT vehicles discreetly parked near-by, etc.
Hayashi and staff were offered ways to improve the bill without pulling it. These offers went unanswered. The bill was supported by certain medical organizations that meant well, that intended to protect players, but that were short-sighted in their eagerness to have a seat at the legislative table. That seat has now become the hot-seat. Hayashi should offer protective amendments while she still has the chance.
AB 655 (Hayashi, transfer of peer review material): This bill, now signed into law by Gov. Brown, was also well intended; unfortunately, it was written in such a careless manner that it allows false and defamatory materials to be included with whatever peer review documentation is transferred from one hospital to another (this process is how a physician gets practice privileges at additional hospitals).
Hayashi and staff were advised about the defect in the bill and were offered language to abort the careless language in the bill. Hayashi and staff did not offer a reply. Instead, Hayashi belittled the doctors and falsely told the Assembly that there was no opposition to the bill even when there were about 50 protests already on file (none were from fellow legislators).
Linda Halderman, MD, Assemblywoman, told the Assembly that she'd received a record number of inquiries on this bill. Hayashi told the Assembly that there was no opposition. Halderman then stated that she would support the bill. We believe that Halderman should have known better, indeed, that she did know better and gave Hayashi support in a legislative charade where Halderman pretended to ask a question and then dove head first into the Hayashi camp. The shameful show got video-recorded and is still available through the Assembly itself. We can now watch for Halderman's rise in insider legislative circles (Hayashi's chair and future are in doubt even though she can finish her term). All the same, there is still time for Hayashi to seek corrective amendments to her bills. The question is whether or not she wants to do so.
In the meantime, doctors are now at risk of criminal culpability for errors in judgment and should fully understand the consequences of participating in sports activities that are associated with concussions (such as but not limited to football, hockey, soccer, boxing).
Showing posts with label AB 655 (Hayashi). Show all posts
Showing posts with label AB 655 (Hayashi). Show all posts
Monday, January 9, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
SHOPLIFTING (alleged) and LAWMAKING (also alleged): how careless legislation becomes law
Mary Hayashi's current conflict with the law is based on her having reportedly been nabbed in the act of shoplifting. Her defense so far is that she inadvertently stepped outside the store with a shopping bag loaded with expensive clothing and that she did so because she'd been distracted by cell phone calls. Sounds careless, doesn't it? But not necessarily done with criminal intent. How does this personal behavior jive with her professional conduct as a legislator?
Remember that during the debate re peer review over AB 655 Hayashi repeatedly stated that there was no opposition. It turns out that this statement is false. The California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery sent an advisory letter about defects in the bill while the Alliance for Patient Safety openly opposed the bill. Hayashi had plenty of time to correct the deficiencies in the bill, namely, that as written the legislation allows false and defamatory allegations against good doctors to be transferred from one hospital to another. Hayashi ignored advice to clean up this language. Instead, she belittled doctors who filed protests. Prestigious doctors such as R.V. Rao, MD, Chief of Surgery, the subject of a previous blog of ours, did their level best to advise Hayashi about her folly.
The California Medical Association wanted the bill as is -- in due course investigation will tell us why since the fact is that the chief beneficiaries of the bill are the clients of the California Hospital Association. Hayashi could have written a better bill, at least, some of us think she could have done so. On the other hand, if she's as casual and distracted about bill writing as she claims she is about shopping, maybe not.
Let's look at AB 25, another Hayashi bill signed into law, also well intentioned and also flawed. This bill, signed into law by Gov. Brown who also signed AB 655 into law, takes effect on January 1st, 2012. It will require school districts with extracurricular sports activities "to immediately remove ... an athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion or head injury ... the bill would prohibit the return of the athlete to that activity until he or she is evaluated by, and receives written clearance from, a licensed health care provider, as specified."
"As specified" as what? Is neurological or neurosurgical attention required? Will any ol' "licensed health care provider" qualify for the job? The bill doesn't "specify" that physicians must make these decisions. Prior to passage of this bill, physicians who volunteered for this function put their practices on the line even though they may've worked on a pro bono basis. They risked being named in civil liability suits, e.g., malpractice accusations. Now they're also eligible for criminal accusations. One would have expected the California Neurology Society to seek malpractice waivers for physicians who accept these assignments on a pro bono basis and at the least to have tried to exempt them from criminal responsibility.
As devotees of the Conrad Murray show know, malpractice and criminal liability are separate and distinct. In the Murray trial, the judge stated that the trial was not about malpractice. It was about criminal activity. So it is now with AB 25 for concussions and head injuries sustained by high school athletes. Healthcare providers who accept these assignments may now risk double jeopardy: civil litigation for malpractice and criminal litigation thanks to Hayashi's other folly.
As to Hayashi herself, we're saddened and sorry but not surprised. Anybody who strolls out of a store with a coupla' grand of clothing in a shopping bag doesn't surprise us when she's equally careless with legislation.
Remember that during the debate re peer review over AB 655 Hayashi repeatedly stated that there was no opposition. It turns out that this statement is false. The California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery sent an advisory letter about defects in the bill while the Alliance for Patient Safety openly opposed the bill. Hayashi had plenty of time to correct the deficiencies in the bill, namely, that as written the legislation allows false and defamatory allegations against good doctors to be transferred from one hospital to another. Hayashi ignored advice to clean up this language. Instead, she belittled doctors who filed protests. Prestigious doctors such as R.V. Rao, MD, Chief of Surgery, the subject of a previous blog of ours, did their level best to advise Hayashi about her folly.
The California Medical Association wanted the bill as is -- in due course investigation will tell us why since the fact is that the chief beneficiaries of the bill are the clients of the California Hospital Association. Hayashi could have written a better bill, at least, some of us think she could have done so. On the other hand, if she's as casual and distracted about bill writing as she claims she is about shopping, maybe not.
Let's look at AB 25, another Hayashi bill signed into law, also well intentioned and also flawed. This bill, signed into law by Gov. Brown who also signed AB 655 into law, takes effect on January 1st, 2012. It will require school districts with extracurricular sports activities "to immediately remove ... an athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion or head injury ... the bill would prohibit the return of the athlete to that activity until he or she is evaluated by, and receives written clearance from, a licensed health care provider, as specified."
"As specified" as what? Is neurological or neurosurgical attention required? Will any ol' "licensed health care provider" qualify for the job? The bill doesn't "specify" that physicians must make these decisions. Prior to passage of this bill, physicians who volunteered for this function put their practices on the line even though they may've worked on a pro bono basis. They risked being named in civil liability suits, e.g., malpractice accusations. Now they're also eligible for criminal accusations. One would have expected the California Neurology Society to seek malpractice waivers for physicians who accept these assignments on a pro bono basis and at the least to have tried to exempt them from criminal responsibility.
As devotees of the Conrad Murray show know, malpractice and criminal liability are separate and distinct. In the Murray trial, the judge stated that the trial was not about malpractice. It was about criminal activity. So it is now with AB 25 for concussions and head injuries sustained by high school athletes. Healthcare providers who accept these assignments may now risk double jeopardy: civil litigation for malpractice and criminal litigation thanks to Hayashi's other folly.
As to Hayashi herself, we're saddened and sorry but not surprised. Anybody who strolls out of a store with a coupla' grand of clothing in a shopping bag doesn't surprise us when she's equally careless with legislation.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
AB 655 (Hayashi's Hypocrisy) : The Sequel
LAWMAKER MARY HAYASHI CHARGED WITH SHOPLIFTING is the title of an article posted on SF GATE from the San Francisco Chronicle, 10/29/2011.
SHOPLIFTING POLITICIANS is the title of the post on JUDICIAL COUNCIL WATCHER.
Here's the facts as they've been reported so far: Hayashi was shopping at Neiman Marcus and left the store with items priced at $2,450. She checked out at the register without paying for these items, got stopped by security, was taken to the Tenderloin Police Station, and was booked on one count of felony theft. She is eligible for three years in prison if convicted although as a new arrival to the felony theft scene a full three-year sentence is not expected. Her mouthpiece said she was "distraught" at the misunderstanding whereby she inadvertently by-passed the cash register and walked out of the store with the goods.
We are willing to post this story as reported but we'll wait for her defense and court judgement before drawing final conclusions. In the meantime, we'll explain why we've learned not to trust her anyway.
During the hearings on AB 655 she repeatedly told everyone and anyone who would listen that there was no opposition to the bill even though by this time it was known that there were dozens of private objections to the bill that had been sent not only to her office but also to the relevant legislative committees. All were ignored by Hayashi and her staff. Instead of thoughtful reply, we were told there was "no opposition." Technically, there's some truth to this assertion because there were no negative votes in the legislature. So it was not a complete lie that there was no opposition. There was, however, enough disception to dishonor her office and to sully the reputation of another assemblyperson who contributed to the deception in a sham speech and charade on the Assembly floor (which we have on video for appropriate release, like at election time).
It's not as though this instance were the first and only example of sub-standard conduct reported to have been committed by Hayashi. Two years ago it was reported that she used $202,212 from her own campaign money to assist her attorney spouse to win election to the Alameda county bench.
But there's plenty of soiled linen to pass around. Here's the latest from our reporter in Anaheim where the California Medical Association met last week. Jim Hinsdale, MD, out-going president of the CMA, proudly told the CMA attendees that AB 655 was one of CMA's more important legislative successes this year (CMA was actually the sponsor of this bill). Jodi Hicks, now in charge of lobbying for the CMA, dismissed assertions that the bill allows sham peer review.
The legislation was reportedly intended to enable transfer of peer review information about doctors among hospitals in order to prevent doctors who were shown to be incompetent from moving from hospital to hospital without full disclosure.
The legislation as written, unfortunately, enables hospital administrations to transfer material that is false and defamatory even if it is known that the information is false and defamatory. It enables and protects false witness. In essence it allows the equivalent of peer review blackmail.
When strenuous efforts were made in good faith to amend the bill resistance came from the CMA CEO, Dustin Corcoran, who spoke with the undersigned and allowed a snippet of amended language, just not enough to allow expungement of false and defamatory language. Some believe that the real force behind the bill was the California Hospital Association and that the basic ideology is to enable control of doctors by hospital administrations and foundations.
R.V. Rao, MD, Chief of Surgery at his hospital, says that "it is time to file ethics charges against this legislator to the California legislative assembly for blatantly misleading the California legislative assembly." We think that's a good idea.
The next step is for hospital committees that do peer review and credentials to meet and confer and decide what they need to do before the first lawsuits are filed in which the individual doctors serving on these committees are sued for defamation. The law may protect peer review and lawful conduct. It does not protect illegal activity.
The hornets are beginning to swarm. Committees at two hospitals known to this writer have already held meetings in which the topic was how to protect themselves as committee members from the consequences of this incompetent legislation.
SHOPLIFTING POLITICIANS is the title of the post on JUDICIAL COUNCIL WATCHER.
Here's the facts as they've been reported so far: Hayashi was shopping at Neiman Marcus and left the store with items priced at $2,450. She checked out at the register without paying for these items, got stopped by security, was taken to the Tenderloin Police Station, and was booked on one count of felony theft. She is eligible for three years in prison if convicted although as a new arrival to the felony theft scene a full three-year sentence is not expected. Her mouthpiece said she was "distraught" at the misunderstanding whereby she inadvertently by-passed the cash register and walked out of the store with the goods.
We are willing to post this story as reported but we'll wait for her defense and court judgement before drawing final conclusions. In the meantime, we'll explain why we've learned not to trust her anyway.
During the hearings on AB 655 she repeatedly told everyone and anyone who would listen that there was no opposition to the bill even though by this time it was known that there were dozens of private objections to the bill that had been sent not only to her office but also to the relevant legislative committees. All were ignored by Hayashi and her staff. Instead of thoughtful reply, we were told there was "no opposition." Technically, there's some truth to this assertion because there were no negative votes in the legislature. So it was not a complete lie that there was no opposition. There was, however, enough disception to dishonor her office and to sully the reputation of another assemblyperson who contributed to the deception in a sham speech and charade on the Assembly floor (which we have on video for appropriate release, like at election time).
It's not as though this instance were the first and only example of sub-standard conduct reported to have been committed by Hayashi. Two years ago it was reported that she used $202,212 from her own campaign money to assist her attorney spouse to win election to the Alameda county bench.
But there's plenty of soiled linen to pass around. Here's the latest from our reporter in Anaheim where the California Medical Association met last week. Jim Hinsdale, MD, out-going president of the CMA, proudly told the CMA attendees that AB 655 was one of CMA's more important legislative successes this year (CMA was actually the sponsor of this bill). Jodi Hicks, now in charge of lobbying for the CMA, dismissed assertions that the bill allows sham peer review.
The legislation was reportedly intended to enable transfer of peer review information about doctors among hospitals in order to prevent doctors who were shown to be incompetent from moving from hospital to hospital without full disclosure.
The legislation as written, unfortunately, enables hospital administrations to transfer material that is false and defamatory even if it is known that the information is false and defamatory. It enables and protects false witness. In essence it allows the equivalent of peer review blackmail.
When strenuous efforts were made in good faith to amend the bill resistance came from the CMA CEO, Dustin Corcoran, who spoke with the undersigned and allowed a snippet of amended language, just not enough to allow expungement of false and defamatory language. Some believe that the real force behind the bill was the California Hospital Association and that the basic ideology is to enable control of doctors by hospital administrations and foundations.
R.V. Rao, MD, Chief of Surgery at his hospital, says that "it is time to file ethics charges against this legislator to the California legislative assembly for blatantly misleading the California legislative assembly." We think that's a good idea.
The next step is for hospital committees that do peer review and credentials to meet and confer and decide what they need to do before the first lawsuits are filed in which the individual doctors serving on these committees are sued for defamation. The law may protect peer review and lawful conduct. It does not protect illegal activity.
The hornets are beginning to swarm. Committees at two hospitals known to this writer have already held meetings in which the topic was how to protect themselves as committee members from the consequences of this incompetent legislation.
Monday, October 3, 2011
AB 584 (Fong) is still on the Governor's desk: he has until October 9th to sign it into law. This bill will stop the perfidious practice of farming out utilization review for injured workers to doctors without California licenses. These doctors, no matter how well qualified, have not done the mandatory 12-hour pain management course that is required of doctors licensed in California. In addition to enjoying this relief, the doctors without California licenses enjoy another benefit: they don't pay fees to the Medical Board of California since they're not licensed in California. The loss of revenue to California's General Fund in terms of lost taxable income is $10,000,000 annually. If these doctors make grievous errors, they don't have to explain anything to the MBC nor do they report to their own state boards since those boards don't have jurisdiction in California. The loss to injured workers in California who are denied timely authorization of care is incalculable. Urge the governor to sign AB 584 by faxing your signed statement to him at 916-558-3177.
Late bulletin: Gov. Brown vetoed this bill on Oct. 7th because it wasn't consistent with how UR is done under Knox-Keene and private health plans that use the same UR techniques to delay and deny indicated medical care. The reasoning seems to be that's it's OK to apply the same screw to injured workers as to everybody else. Is it time to take down Knox-Keene?
AB 655 (Hayashi), also on the Governor's desk, is a horse of another color, well, at least a donkey of another color. This bill will allow transfer of alleged peer review material from one hospital to another when doctors apply for hospital privileges. The trouble is that there's nothing in the bill that allows sham peer review material, material that's flat-out wrong or defamatory, to be excluded from the transferred material. The accused doctor doesn't even need to be copied on the transferred material. Assemblywoman Hayashi, author of the bill, actually misinformed the legislature in an Assembly speech about the bill by asserting that there was no opposition (we have the video showing her doing just that). Attempts to get an amendment that would allow accused doctors to be fully informed were unsuccessful. The Governor should veto AB 655. Fax him that message at 916-558-3177.
Late bulletin: after the posting of the item above, word came in from Sacramento that Gov. Brown signed AB 655.
Late bulletin: Gov. Brown vetoed this bill on Oct. 7th because it wasn't consistent with how UR is done under Knox-Keene and private health plans that use the same UR techniques to delay and deny indicated medical care. The reasoning seems to be that's it's OK to apply the same screw to injured workers as to everybody else. Is it time to take down Knox-Keene?
AB 655 (Hayashi), also on the Governor's desk, is a horse of another color, well, at least a donkey of another color. This bill will allow transfer of alleged peer review material from one hospital to another when doctors apply for hospital privileges. The trouble is that there's nothing in the bill that allows sham peer review material, material that's flat-out wrong or defamatory, to be excluded from the transferred material. The accused doctor doesn't even need to be copied on the transferred material. Assemblywoman Hayashi, author of the bill, actually misinformed the legislature in an Assembly speech about the bill by asserting that there was no opposition (we have the video showing her doing just that). Attempts to get an amendment that would allow accused doctors to be fully informed were unsuccessful. The Governor should veto AB 655. Fax him that message at 916-558-3177.
Late bulletin: after the posting of the item above, word came in from Sacramento that Gov. Brown signed AB 655.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
