APMA News - July 2011 - (Page 62)

Insurance Advisor By William F. Munsey, DPM Keep Paper Records; Simplify Informed Consent QUESTION: With the federal government and health-care consultants strongly encouraging health-care providers to convert to electronic health records (EHR), the question arises as to the need to retain hard copies of records that have been converted. One of the advantages of EHR is the elimination of the record storage problem. Is it permissible to destroy records once they have been converted? ANSWER: Some legal consultants have advised against destroying the paper medical records because of audit and malpractice issues. Other advisors claim there are no negative consequences to destroying records that have been scanned. With such an extensive change in procedure, only time and, in some cases, court action will tell. The following is a reply from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to an attorney’s request: “If an Ohio Medicaid-certified health provider destroys paper medical records after conversion to electronic format and before paper medical records are audited, the health-care provider has committed a crime. Depending on the amount of controversy, the penalty ranges from a felony of the third degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree. In addition, all services reimbursed will be disallowed and overpayment demand presented because the health-care provider could not produce documentation to support claims reimbursed at audit.” One of the cardinal rules relating to malpractice records is to never alter records. Experts are able to identify entries that were made subsequent to the original record. They can make this determination by observing subtle differences in the ink, etc. There is some question as to whether illegal changes to EHR can be detected as easily. The prudent action would be to continue to preserve written records along with the electronic records until the courts and government agencies have resolved these questions. A Reader’s Comment I enjoy reading your articles in APMA News and would like to share my thoughts on informed consent. I have been in practice over 60 years and have served as a defense expert in a number of malpractice cases. My advice is to use simple terms such as “bunion” instead of “hallux valgus,” “cut tendon” in place of “tenotomy,” or “remove bone spur” in place of “arthroplasty.” I added the following questions to my consent form and have patients initial both items: Did Dr. Brown explain the surgeries to your understanding and satisfaction? Did Dr. Brown answer all of your questions to your satisfaction and understanding? Arizona Podiatric Medicine Program Midwestern University—Glendale, AZ Faculty Member – Tenure Track Currently inviting applications for a faculty position with teaching responsibilities both in the classroom and in the University clinic. Requirements: a doctorate in podiatric medicine from an accredited institution, three years of clinical and academic experience, a record of scholarly activity, surgical experience (including at least two years of residency training), familiarity with the principles of biomechanics, board qualified, and have the ability to obtain an AZ license to practice podiatric medicine. http://www.midwestern.edu/azpod. Send a letter of application, curriculum vitae, and the names and addresses of three professional references to: Jeffrey C. Page, DPM Director, Podiatric Medicine Program Midwestern University Phone: 623.572.3450 E-mail: jpagex@midwestern.edu • • Tort Reform Doctors in Oklahoma will benefit from three major new tort reform statutes. Each bill addresses a separate issue that has driven malpractice insurance costs. HB 2128 places a $350,000 hard cap on non-economic damages. It will, however, not impact economic damages, such as lost wages, medical expenses, and future loss of expected wages. The bill includes an exception to the cap in the case of malicious conduct, gross negligence, or reckless discharge. HB 862 eliminates joint and several liability, sometimes known as a “deep pockets” rule, wherein each and every defendant in a tort lawsuit is liable for the entire amount of the plaintiff’s damages regardless of his or her degree of fault. SB 865 requires that the jury be instructed in civil cases that no part of the award for damages for personal injury or wrongful death is subject to state or federal income tax, and the jury should not consider income taxes when determining a proper compensation award. n Dr. Munsey can be reached at wfmunseydpm@ gmail.com. 62 APMA News July/August 2011 http://www.midwestern.edu/azpod

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of APMA News - July 2011

APMA News - July 2011
President’s Message
Contents
PICA Reflects on its Past, Looks to the Future
APMA Media Event Wrap-Up: Toning Shoes Are All The Rage, Along with Podiatrists' Expert Advice
APMA Member Testifi es Before Congressional Committee on Health IT
Stepping Up to Prevent Falls: Part II
Resident Experts: CPME's Residency Evaluators Share Their Stories
Strategic Planning Retreat Underscores APMA Direction
Reimbursement
Can They Really Do That?
Members Who Know Media
Technofile
Young Voices
Federal Advocacy Forum
Small Business 101
CPME Update
APMAPAC Chair Report
APMA All Stars
In Short
Worthy of Note
Affiliates Corner
Insurance Advisor
New Members
Death Notices
APMAPAC Update
Development Update
Annual Scientific Meeting Sponsors
Committee Nominations
Bylaws Propositions Due
Classified Advertising
Dates to Remember
Advertising Index
Ten Questions

APMA News - July 2011