BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1127
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1127 (Brownley)
As Amended April 4, 2011
Majority vote
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 8-0
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hayashi, Allen, Butler, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Eng, Hagman, Hill, Ma, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Smyth | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes it unprofessional conduct for a physician and
surgeon who is the subject of an investigation by the Medical
Board of California (MBC) to repeatedly fail, in the absence of
good cause, to attend and participate in an interview scheduled
by the mutual agreement of the physician and surgeon and the
MBC.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and
surgeons under the Medical Practice Act (Act) by the MBC
within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).
2)Requires the MBC to take action against any licensee who is
charged with unprofessional conduct.
3)Provides that unprofessional conduct includes, but is not
limited to, the following:
a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or
indirectly, assisting in or abetting the violation of, or
conspiring to violate any provision of the Act;
b) Gross negligence;
AB 1127
Page 2
c) Repeated negligent acts, as specified;
d) Incompetence;
e) The commission of any act involving dishonesty or
corruption which is substantially related to the
qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and
surgeon;
f) Any action or conduct which would have warranted the
denial of a certificate; and,
g) The practice of medicine from this state into another
state or country without meeting the legal requirements of
that state or country for the practice of medicine, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Assembly Appropriations Committee,
potential minor cost savings from a reduction in administrative
duties related to the failure of physicians to appear for
interviews at the scheduled time, to the extent that this bill
deters physicians from failing to appear.
COMMENTS : According to the author's office, "After an initial
complaint is filed against a physician with the Medical Board,
the Board's first step is to interview the physician to gather
more background and determine the legitimacy of the complaint.
Interviews require the presence of the physician, investigator
from the Medical Board, medical consultant from the Medical
Board, and a representative from the Attorney General's office.
Multiple dates are suggested before settling on a time that
accommodates the physician's schedule.
"Despite best practices by the Board to dismiss frivolous
complaints and pursue those that warrant formal accusations,
there have been documented delays in investigations as some
physicians have repeatedly and purposefully failed to appear
before the Board after scheduling interviews absent good cause.
This has resulted in cases being delayed between 60 days to over
one year. Over the last three years, the Board has been forced
to issue 338 subpoenas to compel participation of these
physicians, wasting valuable staff time and department
resources."
AB 1127
Page 3
The MBC's disciplinary process requires the MBC, after receiving
a complaint against a licensee, to interview the physician
before moving forward to either close the case or take
disciplinary action. If the physician refuses to appear for an
interview, the process comes to a halt.
After the Legislature's 2001-02 sunset review of the MBC, SB
1950 (Figueroa), Chapter 1085, Statutes of 2002, required the
Director of DCA to retain, by March 31, 2003, an enforcement
program monitor to evaluate the MBC's disciplinary system for
two years and report his or her findings to the Legislature, the
MBC, and DCA.
In 2005, the MBC's enforcement program monitor released her
final report that found, among other things, that MBC's case
processing times were unacceptably high and cited delays in
physician interviews as a contributing factor. While the MBC
revised its interview policies and deadlines, the report noted
that the average number of days between the interview request
and the actual interview represents "a large portion of the
undesirable 259-day average investigative timeframe."
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301
FN: 0000516