Most — if not all — state regulatory boards of medicine are able to compel the investigated healthcare provider in virtually all cases that come before them. It took a Massachusetts psychiatrist to challenge that state’s medical board on issues of patient confidentiality. In a case involving the anonymous psychiatrist’s pain management of a handful of patients, the Mass. supreme court ruled that the physician had the right to deny a subpoena by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine requiring the provider to submit records — nixing the board’s contention that it has a duty to uphold public safety at all costs (safety trumps confidentiality).

Paul R. Cirel, the Boston lawyer who represents the doctor, said in an interview that the board already has access to the records of all controlled substances prescribed by Massachusetts doctors. The ruling, he said, clarifies the state’s psychotherapist-patient privilege and prevents the board from obtaining records about the private relationships between therapists and patients.

The board’s investigation found that the psychiatrist’s narcotic prescribing patterns involved over 200 patients — with over 80 percent being prescribed oxycodone, 77 percent being prescribed diazepam (Valium), and a like number prescribed both. | LINK

Related Posts Within Doctor Pundit:

1. When Patient Activism Becomes Problematic for Physicians The battlelines are drawn in the latest medicolegal war which...
2. Physicians: A Modest Response to a Modest GOP Proposal Readers of the Huffington Post are treated to a concise...
3. NEJM: Sleep Deprived Surgeons Should Seek Informed Consent from Patients Prior to Elective Procedures Think about this: you’re about to have elective knee replacement...
4. Physicians Tackle So-Called ‘Heavy Utilizers’ to Control Acute Care Costs A pretty interesting piece on the role some hospitals are...
5. Journalists Decry WH Decision to Pull Physicians’ Database Throughout one’s professional life as a physician, there are some...