UNIONIZING PHYSICIANS IN WASHINGTON STATE -- Taking on MultiCare

In a historic development for professional unions, Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD), stated on 15 October 2016 that the private practice physicians at Auburn Medical Center (AMC) in Tacoma, Washington, voted to join the UAPD -- the occasion is historic because it is the first time that the UAPD has formally organized a hospital medical staff outside of California. Although the UAPD has had non-California membership throughout its history, this effort marks the first successful organizational campaign outside of California. This step means that the UAPD and its AMC members can now negotiate legally with MultiCare which had opposed the formation of a doctors' union but which also indicated its intent to work with the physicians' elected union representative.

Local leadership was provided by Virginia Stowell, MD, general surgeon, whose concerns included winning more autonomy for physicians in the disposition of patient care, developing more clout in the negotiation of compensation and working conditions, and preventing the arbitrary outsourcing of professional work by hospital administration. Stowell's history includes having worked at MultiCare since 2012. Before that she was in private practice for 16 years. At the present time, MultiCare reviews physician compensation and makes its own decisions. From now on the UAPD will be enabled to participate in these decisions. In leading up to this historic vote, Stowell won two cases with NLRB that prevented MultiCare from foisting its will upon their physicians. In a nutshell, NLRB ruled that efforts by MultiCare  to prevent its doctors from discussing wages and working conditions violated the National Labor Relations Act which protects this activity.

It was pointed out during the voting process that hospitals have many committees staffed by physicians but that in the final analysis such committees have minimal ability to oppose administrative decisions decided upon by management. Stowell and others, including Neil Partain, a hospitalist at AMC, agreed that it would be better for the physicians and their patients if the doctors had a union to represent their views before the hospital and MultiCare.

Representing the UAPD in this effort was Theodore Gashaw, Lead Organizer, 916-796-3124, tgashaw@uapd.com.  Gashaw said that members of other systems have also called him although at this time MultiCare is where the UAPD has received the most interest.

Meanwhile in California, expanded interest in private practice organization is anticipated especially since Governor Brown signed AB 72 (Bonta) into law. This bill slashes "surprise billing" (see our previous editorial about "surprise billing" and AB 72, 6 October 2016) but leaves "network contraction" intact. Critics point out to what extent this legislation, under the guise of patient protection, actually promotes corporate compensation at the expense of patient care.

WHEN PATIENTS GET TOO EXPENSIVE TO TREAT

What do insurance companies do when medical expenses get too high for comfort?  How may insurance companies deal with expanding medical costs that lower shareholder return and that may cause reduced executive compensation?

Currently, rituxin is one of the newer agents recommended for the active phase of acute demyelinating disease, multiple sclerosis in particular, but also extending to a complicated condition known as "lupoid sclerosis." Robyn G. Young, MD, Alameda, formely, president of the California Neurology Society,  states that this treatment is a preferred regimen for active system disease. e.g., MS/demyelination accompanying systemic SLE.

However, reluctance on the part of payers to cover this regimen has been noticed by frustrated clinicians whose treatment decisions may be delayed or denied by insurers who may assert that a specific treatment regimen is "experimental" and therefore not eligible for coverage under the plan. If that happens, the patient is then denied insurance coverage and may have to pay for treatment out-of-pocket while the insurance company continues to bill for its alleged coverage, whatever of that remains once what the patient currently needs is denied. 

Insurance companies have other ways of controlling costs. One of these other ways is to limit access to physicians to cover the number of enrolled subscribers. That increases the length of time it'll take to see a physician, especially a specialist, which in turn reduces expenses for the insurance company, which in turn allows more favorable financial quarterly reports to be issued. Another technique is to drop physicians from the MPN (medical provider network) based purely on business reasons -- no allegation of poor medical practice need be made. This latter technique reduces short-term expenses, allows for more favorable financial reports on a quarterly basis, and runs little risk of collectively increased long-term expense because of delays of care. Keep in mind that in workers comp, for instance, Temporary Disability (TD) runs out in two years. 

Doctor Young stated that "our patients should not be the victims of either insurance or pharma greed ... the physician has been devalued while all the other entities with financial interests in rationing patient care have been elevated in control and influence."

That is why some medical organizations seem poised to fight simultaneously for their patients' rights as well as for the rights of member physicians lest the latter become indentured servants dependent either on the corporate mentality that rules Big Biz or the other corporate mentality that rules government. In this regard watch for a likely take-down on an aspect of Obamacare (Affordable Care Act). The case is King versus Burwell, Docket # 14-114, set for SCOTUS argument beginning on 4 March 2015. The case deals with an IRS ruling re availability of federal tax subsidies to persons who bought health insurance on exchanges run by the federal government -- we'll cover more on that in future columns.

In the meantime, Doctor Young's conclusion  that "it is time that we (physicians) took back our role as patient care advocates" should be shouted from physician rooftops everywhere.

References

"Regaining Control of Medical Practice," CLINICAL EEG,  c. 1995, V. 26, #1 (reprints available SSAE upon request to Dr. Weinmann, 2040 Forest Avenue, #4, San Jose, CA. 95128)

"Union head urges reform in health care," THE OAKLAND TRIBUNE,  4 November 1998 (White House press conference with then President Bill Clinton)

PROPOSITION 45 MAY RIDE AGAIN (Regulating Insurance Companies That Sell Healthcare Policies)

Like a reliable bucking bronco used to rodeo participation, Proposition 45 may be down, not out, and capable of rising again if supportive organizations adopt it, revise it, and promote it. 

Among the physicians who were supportive of Prop. 45  we can probably still count on Paul Song and Robyn Young to maintain interest and put up a fight. Doctor Song is reported to have an eye on running for insurance commissioner once Dave Jones has finished his tenure. Young is president of the California Neurology Society and maintains hands-on interest in  medical- political issues in Sacramento and Washington, DC.

What killed Proposition 45 in the November, 2014 voting in California was the widespread perception that regulation of the insurance companies was largely smoke and mirrors. The idea was to allow the insurance commissioner as much authority over the sellers of healthcare insurance as is now allowed with reference to automobile liability insurance.

That meant that the insurance commissioner would be enabled to role back an insurance company's increase in premium it it were judged by the insurance commissioner to be arbitrary, not substantiated by demonstrable need. The insurance commissioner would be judge and jury. 

Careful readers of the proposition quickly realized that what was deemed "arbitrary" might itself be arbitrary and that insurance commissioners might yield to political persuasion. The insurance companies countered with an ad that said doctors, not politicians, should decide medical matters. The obvious riposte was that insurance companies currently readily find ways to deny authorization of care, restricting access to diagnostic studies, specialists, and expensive procedures, sometimes even medicines. The proponents of 45 were caught flat-footed, or when not flat-footed, too penurious to afford proper rebuttal ads. 

The Californnia Medical Association and the Union of American Physicians and Dentists found common ground in opposing 45 -- they agreed that a likely scenario for an insurance company whose increased premium got rebuked would simply be to reduce remuneration to providers such as hospitals, clinics, and physicians. That being so, they opted to oppose the proposition since its obvious effect would be to reduce access to care. The likely next step would be for MPNs (Medical Provider Networks) to fire physicians as fast as possible -- the longer the waiting line for access to care, the lower monthly expenses would be, the higher profits and executive compensation would be,  never mind that overall serious illness would go up. The obvious fly-trap was "insurance  for everybody, medical care for nobody"

As a result these and other medical organizations opposed the proposition even though in their collective guts they may have favored the concept.  Prop. 45 did not cover providers or provider groups because it did not give the insurance commissioner authority to regulate provider reimbursement by the insurance companies.

Now it's up to the proponents to write a proper legislative bill that takes these concepts into account and puts them into legislative language in time for the 2015 legislative session. Since there's a long history on this concept, AB 52 from previous failed legislation, and now Prop. 45 itself, it should be possible to construct a new bill that will tie up these loose ends. The next step will be to get a legislative author and to be available as an articulate sponsor at committee hearings and the like. 

Indeed, since the concept already has traction, my advice is to seek out an appropriate legislator to carry the bill with the understanding  that when he looks over his shoulder he'll see troops in support, not defectors fleeing the political scene. 

Proposition 45: pro and con

Robyn G. Young, MD, president, California Neurology Society, presents her case for Prop. 45 in her editorial available on ca-neuro-society.org (it is also summarized in our previous blog in the end-of-article listing of references).

Now comes Stuart A. Bussey, MD, JD, president, Union of American Physicians and Dentists, who writes in the "The UAPD Pulse" why Prop. 45 does not deserve passage.

Bussey's piece makes these points:

1. Prop 45 would shift regulatory authority from an independent commission to one political figure who would then become a "pressure point" subject to special interests.

Comment: the independent commission is also subject to special interest pressure, but it's more difficult to get to an entire committee than one person. On the other hand, commissioners get their jobs by appointment, political appointment, not by scoring well on achievement tests.

2. Bussey points out that under the ACA administrative costs are limited to 20% -- anything over that "must revert back to patient services."

Comment: Trouble is that the insurance companies often try to sneak administrative costs into the "patient services" sector. Example are utilization reviews requested by insurance companies that seek to disguise them as "consultations."

3. If  Prop. 45 passes a likely revenge step the insurance companies will take will be to slash provider reimbursement. Agreed, that's what they'll do, not that they don't already do it. The independent commission has not roared its disapproval of provider abuse.

Comment: It's also likely that the insurance companies and MPNs (Medical  Provider Networks) will jettison hundreds of doctors as a way to reduce expenses (not that that hasn't already been done). That in turn will force the remaining doctors to see more patients faster (the short visit you get now will be made even shorter).

My opinion: if Proposition 45 passes, the next step will be the implementation of rules and regulations. Proponents should be ready to take that matter on from Day One. That means day-to-day readiness to participate in the regulatory process. Proponents feel they have a better chance at fair regulation with Proposition 45 than without it. Opponents are skeptical, and with good reason, e.g., the unions bent over backwards to get Brown elected Governor only to find out yesterday that he vetoed all three of their bills. Would a single insurance commissioner be different?

The latest re the ACA: a laboratory in San Jose has just  billed a doctor's office for laboratory work done for Medicare patients. The lab in question said that changes in the Affordable Care Act made in January of 2014 allows them to do so. We'll look into this matter and see what the current insurance commissioner wants to do --  it'll be a prelude to what he'd do were Proposition 45 to pass.

In our next blog, we're planning on a few parting shots re Prop. 46,

Question: When should lawyers be tested for drugs?

Answer: When they're awake.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1340 DESERVES SAFE PASSAGE: SO DO DOCTORS, NURSES, AND PATIENTS

Assembly Bill 1340 (Achadjian) deserves favorable consideration: here's why.

Today, in my day-to-day role as a physician specializing in neurological injuries and diseases, I examined a nurse who in the course of trying to take care of a mentally unstable patient, got so badly beaten up that her head and neck injuries preclude her from returning to work in almost any capacity. Could her injury have been prevented?

Sadly, the answer is yes. Luckily, the same answer portends better for others in a similar position in the future.

About 4 years ago at Napa State Hospital (NSH) Psychiatric Technician Diana Gross was killed. Further less dire incidents have happened since then at NSH and other mental health facilities. At Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) one mentally unstable patient killed another. All this despite increased guard patrols and police attention.

Psychiatric technicians, nurses, and doctors are now calling for preventive measures in the form of AB 1340 (Achadjian) which would mandate intensive treatment for high risk patients. The bill would require that Enhanced Treatment Programs (ETPs) be set up in California by State Hospitals and would enable state hospital psychiatrists and psychologists to refer patients to ETPs as needed, i.e., when it is determined that a patient is potentially dangerous to himself or others because of impaired mental status when there is evidence of proclivity to violence. The bill would require professional forensic medical evaluations.  Patients could then be assigned to an ETP for up to a year but with provision for re-evaluation within one year.

Psychiatric technician Linda Monahan was quoted in BUSINESS WIRE as having said "Legislators need to understand that we struggle to provide the best patient care possible under extraordinarily dangerous conditions. Some of our patients' mental illnesses make them predatory or sociopathic. Those few are responsible for the majority of the violence we endure. We need specialized programs to provide those patients with more effective treatment while also making hospitals safer for other patients and staff."

It is probably true that the civil rights of these violent patients may be obliged to play second fiddle to their mental health needs until such time as they're enough better to accept treatment in traditional and less supervised environments. Managers of these programs will be obliged to ensure that a proper balance is struck.

My patient today, a devoted nurse who'll probably not work again because of her injuries, is among the lucky ones. She's still alive.

We owe it to her and her colleagues to give them more protection in the form of safer working environments where their skills as doctors and nurses won't depend upon the ability to duck a punch, a kick, or a weapon.

References

Napa, CA., BUSINESS WIRE, 6/09/14

CAPT (California Association of Psychiatric Technicians), 6/06/14

AB 1340 is sponsored by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) and is co-sponsored by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)


 

OPPOSE AB 1886 (EGGMAN) UNLESS AMENDED

AB 1886 (Eggman) cleared committee today by 9 to 4. Organizations that should have spotted it as a dangerous bill were silent except for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the California Medical Association which were opposed. The UAPD states that "this bill would remove the requirement that specified information be posted on the Internet for a period of 10 years thereby requiring that information to be posted indefinitely." For doctors who've committed minor infractions such as being late with reporting requirements this legislation could be a life sentence, e.g., MPNs may very well reject applications of doctors who are listed even for such minor offenses as late reporting. Such doctors run the risk of  lifetime bans. We doubt that the proponents of the bill intend this consequence -- but there it is.

Under current law according to the  Medical Practice Act the Medical Board of California is obliged to post certain information such as malpractice awards on the Internet for 10 years. Once this requirement is gone, such information could be posted indefinitely, effectively a life sentence. The bill should be opposed unless amended.  

Injured Workers Lose Again

Ordinarily, California's  injured workers have issues to worry about other than how doctors do their billings. Not so anymore. Here's why: the change over from the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS) to the RBRVS system has come with severe restrictions against injured workers and their doctors. Even though the OMFS paid near the lowest in the nation, insurance companies weren't satisfied. Here's an example: under the OMFS consulting doctors were allowed to bill for review of medical records. Such reviews often entail studying boxes filled to the brim with medical records. These cases are often complicated by divergent opinions from treating doctors, utilization review denials by doctors, many of whom are unlicensed in California, and by doctors who haven't reviewed the patient's complete medical file. Sometimes the shear complexity of injured workers' injuries is overwhelming, e.g,  as when multiple injuries occur, for instance, a fall from a ladder causing broken arms or legs,  neck or back injury, and a head injury.

Treating doctors and consultants often spend extended amounts of time on such cases. Hours just to review medical records is common and until adoption of the new billing codes was compensated under Code 99358. That code has now been eliminated. The next step for the doctor would be to file an independent report for which the code was 99080. That code has also been eliminated even though such reports quite commonly would be around 20 typed pages and would also have required lengthy preparation.

As a further slap in the face, the actual consultation codes, e.g., 99245, have also been eliminated and have been replaced by RBRVS codes based on Medicare that cost the insurance companies less despite a minimal increase in Medicare.  In a nutshell, consultation for and treatment of complicated injuries has become so prohibitive that primary treating doctors can often not get either. Recently, this writer had a case turned down by a teaching hospital: we were told outright that they don't accept workers' comp cases anymore (i.e., their reimbursement level was cut below the minimum standard the hospital felt it could live with).

A few years ago, when an attempt was being made to push SB 923 (Deleon)  through the legislature, Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, family practice specialist and President of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, Local 206 of  the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, testified that passage of the bill could tie his hands when specialty consultations were needed but were also unavailable. He said that this situation could leave him holding the malpractice bag. The bill crashed but some of its odious provisions were resurrected in SB 863 which is now the law and which mandates replacement of the OMFS by the RBRVS.

Here's the rub: the deletion of the 99358 code for review of medical  records means that many specialists will be unable to review cases as they should. The deletion of the 99080 code means that consultants, if and when they can be obtained,  will not be able to file comprehensive reports for  their patients. It means that Independent Medical Review (IMR) doctors may be much more likely to make decisions (75% of which deny care) without reviewing medical facts.

The billing code changes are a boon for insurance companies because it lowers their administrative expenses. It will also lower actual medical and surgical costs since absent these consultations and reports definitive medical and surgical steps will not be implemented. In chronic pain patients, for instance, it's likely to decrease physicians' treatment options. In this way chronic pain patients may end up on chronic opioids longer than would otherwise be necessary.  It's a chilling thought when this example is extended to other diagnoses requiring complicated orthopedic, neurosurgical, and psychiatric care.

As a result of SB 863, Independent Medical Review (IMR) Physicians will review the necessity of care after Utilization Review (UR) doctors have first had their shot. Readers of this column know that in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, 8/29/08, entitled "How to practice medicine without a license," it was pointed out that UR doctors don't have to be licensed in California (union leaders should be interested in knowing that AFSCME, at its International  Convention in Chicago in 2006, passed a resolution against this practice). 

Upshot: not only does the UR physician not have to interview or examine the injured worker, the UR doc does not even have to be licensed in California, the state in which he practices. Errors the non-California-licensed UR physician make cannot be evaluated by the California Medical Board. Alleged errors cannot be evaluated by the medical board of the state in which the UR physician is licensed, either, because the out-of-state board doesn't have jurisdiction in California.

All  of this largesse is now extended to the IMR physicians thanks to SB 863. The position of the insurance industry is now buttressed by the deletion of codes 99245, 99358, and 99080. Once again the injured worker takes it in the teeth. Nothing new in that, is there? It's just another injury to the already injured worker.

We recommend repeal of SB 863 and support for SB 626 (Beall) or similar legislation since Senator Beall pulled SB 626  in 2013.

 

SB 491 (Hernandez) Gets Stopped  in  Assembly Committee on Business Professions and Consumer Protection

A united coalition including the California Medical Association (CMA), the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Local 206 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO),  the California Society of Physical Medicine and Surgery (CSPM&R),  the California Neurology Society (CNS), and several others helped to convince the committee that allowing healthcare professionals, no matter how well intentioned, to practice beyond their levels of education and training was unwise and a recipe for disaster. Accordingly,  SB 491 failed today to clear the Assembly Committee on Business Professions and Consumer Protection. The name of the game was consumer protection.

In one of our previous blogs we pointed out that nurses and/or nurse practitioners (NPs), once enfranchised to practice medicine without physician supervision, already well disciplined and organized into a proper union would be well poised to negotiate for equal pay. It was not expected that the newly enfranchised nurses would rush to the hinterlands of California where medical back-up in the form of well trained physicians and surgeons would be lacking or that the nurses would rush to places where resources and money were scarce.

One should not expect the nurses to quit this quest. A new campaign should be expected as soon as the old wounds have healed and their  regenerative powers have been regained.

References and a footnote

"SB 491 (Hernandez) clears committee," www.politicsofhealthcare.com, 5/17/13

"If the work is equal, shouldn't the pay be equal?" www.politicsofhealthcare.com, 4/26/13

"No, no, no on SB 491, 492,  493," www.politicsofhealthcare.com, 4/18/13

Footnote: notice that in this instance an AFL-CIO union was on the same side as the CMA  and other traditional physician organizations -- editor.



 

SB 491 (Hernandez) CLEARS COMMITTEE

NURSES WIN KEY COMMITTEE VOTE

First, the facts

In a stunning victory for Nurse Practitioners SB 491 (Hernandez) cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee by a 4 to zero vote (DeLeon, Hill, Lara, and Steinberg). There were
no votes against the bill (Walters, Gaines, and Padilla were not recorded to have voted). No matter, the measure needed only the 4 votes it got.  

The California Medical Association, opposed to the bill, said in its Hot List that "this bill gives nurse practitioners independent practice" because "nurse practitioners will no longer need to  work pursuant to standardized protocols and procedures or any supervising physician and  would basically give them a plenary license to practice medicine."

One of the arguments by Senator Hernandez that proved particularly attractive to proponents was his assertion that allowing Nurse Practitioners to practice medicine "can reduce the cost of medical care by allowing lower-cost workers to  do more routine tasks in place of higher-paid MDs." In this blog, we have already asserted why this fanciful concept may well prove to be illusory. The nurses are well organized and have a strong union. In the opinion of this author the nurses' unions would be asleep at the switch were they to stand idly by while their colleagues got paid less than physicians for doing the same work.

Milton Lorig, MD, Union of American Physicians and Dentists, wrote in the Sacramento Bee that "physicians like myself have undergone far more rigorous training" and that he doubted that a mid-level practitioner "would have made the diagnosis of NMDA-Receptor Autoimmune Encephalitis" that he recently treated. Lorig argued that "patients deserve ready access to providers who are adequately trained." He did not, however, persuade DeLeon, Hill, Lara, or Steinberg -- just one would have been sufficient to save the day for optimal care.

Author's amendments may still be introduced, for instance, a provision to delete the authority for nurse practitioners to make diagnoses of patients and to perform procedures. Allowing expanded use of skilled nurses should not be done by lowering practice standards that physicians, nurses, and scientists have worked centuries to develop.
 

NO, NO, NO ON SB 491, 492, AND 493!

Do we as citizens agree to reduce the level of education and training of our physicians while increasing the number of healthcare providers by expanding the healthcare pool to include nurses and others? Some say the Hernandez Trio, SB 491, 492, and 493 would do just that. The critical question is whether so doing  would be advantageous or detrimental to the provision of healthcare generally.

SB 491 would let Nurse Practitioners (NPs) practice medicine on their own, just as physicians do. The argument for so doing is that there is a dearth of physicians especially in rural areas that NPs could fill.
The counter argument is that physicians are better educated and trained in terms of diagnostics, differential diagnosis, and therapeutics, that is, how to distinguish what may seem to be an inocuous illness as opposed to the harbinger of a medical catastrophe. The issue is whether or not the exchange is worth the candle. The probable result of passage of SB 491 is that NPs, once licensed, will skedaddle from rural practice as fast as their physician colleagues and will set up shop where the money is and compete with their more advanced and more highly trained counterparts. THAT'S the underlying issue. The rest is window-dressing.

SB 492 would allow optometrists to act as ophthalmologists without the pesky interval of real honest-to-gosh medical education and training. Under SB 492 optometrists would be allowed to administer and prescribe drugs including controlled substances. Never mind that right now at the same time various task forces are trying to make it increasingly difficult even for well trained physicians to prescribe narcotics. SB 492 implies that full blown medical education is not necessary for safe ophthalmology practice. If one believes that then SB 492 isn't a problem.

SB 493 would allow pharmacists to dispense medications. In some cases, as when a renewal isn't attended to promptly by a physician, pharmacists already do just that. Their argument is that their training in pharmacology is actually more than most physicians get. On the other hand, conveniently ignored is that pharmacists aren't educated or trained in physical diagnosis and often are not equipped to deal with the adverse consequences of medications. The upshot is that they may prescribe and leave it to some physician somewhere to deal with the complications.

Commentary

"Nurse practitioners battle for right to treat patients" is the title of a piece by Shannon Pettypiece, Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. She describes the predicament of Christy Blanco, Nurse Practitioner in El Paso, who has a doctorate degree in nursing practice. Blanco asserts competence in treating diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, and other conditions. Blanco's problem is that in Texas she is required to contract with a doctor to sign off on medical charts. By contrast no such requirement  exists in New Mexico so Blanco is considering moving there. In her suboptimally used El Paso office she states she is "spending money and making no profit." Ruefully, she adds, "it is a business."

Yessirree, "it is a business," one that has been learned by managed care organizations and corporate American generally and is about to be upgraded by Accountable Care Organizations and pharmacies that are opening their own clinics to be staffed by nurse practitioners and, maybe, even by some physicians (we don't say "even by some doctors" since in due course the NPs will have doctorate degrees in nursing practice).

Competition is not precluded by Hernandez' three bills. Physicians usually leave Nursing Plans in the hands of nurses. They're not required by law to do so. So if competition is the name of the game, one possibility is for physicians to add nursing practice to their own armamentaria. So doing makes more sense than trying to maintain the status quo. We can expect that universities, ever on the prowl for profitability, just like corporate America anywhere, will hire physicians to teach the nurses and then award them "Equivalency Certifications" suitable for framing and display. Physicians can also construct practices entitled to collective bargaining so they can be on equal footing with the nurses who've developed significant enough clout to be direct members of the AFL-CIO (meanwhile, not far behind, is the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, otherwise known as the UAPD or Local 206 of AFSCME, the largest union within the AFL-CIO).

A little known fact, recently revealed by Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, president of the UAPD is that in 2012 the doctors' union was obliged to negotiate with San Francisco County to raise the salaries of the doctors to equal the salaries of the FNPs. The predicament was a kudo for union power on both sides. Unfortunately for the doctors, their preferred professional associations and societies are not unions and are not allowed to negotiate collectively. The nurses don't suffer from this form of erudite elitism.

Professional education has always been considered the democratic equivalent of royal titledom.  We defer to titles, e.g., "doctor. " The nurses' and optometrists' answer is to upgrade alternative forms of education so that the "doctor" title can be bestowed.  Pushing the fact that the higher education and training that physicians get has intrinisic worth is held to be an elitist argument. The answer is to downgrade elitisim. That's where we're headed: less education, less training, equivalency certification, upgraded titles, and a race to the bottom where money lies in tempting repose.

The Affordable Care Act is supposed to upgrade healthcare for all. The expanded application of SB 491, 492, and 493 will downgrade healthcare for all but will expand access to some form of care. This triumverate of bills allows otherwise well trained professionals to work beyond their levels of training. We anticipate in the long run malpractice premiums will increase to accommodate the addition of suboptimally trained new professionals. We recommend a no vote on SBs 491, 492, and 493.