As recent news reports have indicated, the state's medical disciplinary system needs to be strengthened. We agree.

Numerous bills introduced this legislative session show there's no lack of interest in doing something. The essential question is whether the proposed remedies will actually improve things to the betterment of patient safety.

Incompetence, corruption or dishonest or unethical conduct on the part of members of the medical profession is reprehensible and needs to be dealt with in an expeditious and fair, effective manner. In addition to posing a real or potential threat to patients, such conduct undermines the public's confidence in my profession. There is nothing more sacred than the trust between a patient and his/her physician(s), and we must preserve it.

It's painfully obvious that as structured, the Medical Quality Assurance Commission doesn't have the ability to focus on the unique nature of medical disciplinary cases.

Today, the Department of Health oversees 57 professions, from acupuncturists to X-ray technicians. In an effort to treat the various professions more consistently, in 2004, the DOH centralized health investigators and legal staff into a pool. Investigators are now assigned on an as-needed basis to the various boards and commissions. This one-size-fits-all approach is not working.

Rep. Tom Campbell further exacerbates problems with HB 1103, which would further erode the authority of the MQAC to discipline physicians by shifting important responsibilities to staff at the DOH.

What Campbell suggests is at the heart of what's the matter with the Medical Quality Assurance Commission.

Because of the inability of commission members to meaningfully participate in budget, staffing or priority discussions -- all held at the DOH staff level -- the commission is failing to properly discipline physicians in a timely manner. According to a member of the commission, there are "significant delays" in the process of investigating and bringing charges against physicians who have engaged in unprofessional conduct. Those delays hurt complainants as well as those being complained about -- and bolster the public perception that medical discipline is erratic, at best.

Due to the special nature of medical discipline cases, it is imperative that the commission has its own investigative staff trained in medical disciplinary cases. (Today the job requirement of an investigator states that a health care background is "desirable," but not required.) Moving the commission out of the department and forming a freestanding entity will allow the special attention that these cases warrant.

The governor would continue to appoint the members of the commission, but the commission would hire its dedicated staff and control its budget. Additionally, the adjudication phase of discipline would be conducted by an entity outside the commission, i.e., an expert panel all appointed by the governor.

Unfortunately, political pressure is slowing down movement to good reform. Some in the Legislature think that if the disciplinary system is to be fixed, it must address all professions licensed by the department at one time.

It is not right to stifle a good plan -- a needed plan -- because it doesn't address all professions. The Legislature should do its due diligence and address each profession, its unique problems and needs, individually. How much more time will be wasted on ineffectual solutions?

The Washington State Medical Association has proposed a plan that will significantly improve the way physicians will be disciplined in our state. What is appropriate for counselors, naturopaths and chiropractors is, and should be, different.

The sort of solution proposed by such bills as HB 1103 don't fix the shortcomings of the current system; they only shift the problem around.

Soundoff (Read 6 comments)
Tell us what's on your mind.