US Physicians Throw A Legal Hail Mary

After five years and over three million dollars in legal fees, US physicians were handed an adverse and controversial split decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the antitrust aspects of the proprietary American Board of Medical Specialties’ Maintenance of Certification (MOC) product.

In response, on Thursday the Plaintiffs in the case filed a petition for rehearing en banc that was accepted. A rehearing en banc is a procedure where a case is reheard by all the judges of a particular circuit court of appeals, not just the three-judge panel that initially heard it. This is a rare procedure, typically granted when a case is of exceptional importance or to resolve a conflict in the circuit’s own precedent. Such a rehearing is not a standard part of the appeals process and is only granted in limited circumstances, often when a case has exceptional importance, raises significant legal questions, or where a panel’s decision conflicts with another panel’s ruling within the same circuit. By granting the rehearing en banc, it automatically vacates the previous decision of the three-judge panel. The case is then reviewed by the full court, which may decide it based on the existing briefs or order new briefing. 

I encourage all physicians to read the entire rehearng petition linked above. It clearly outlines flaws in the Majority’s decision and outlines the many ways physicians view MOC as a competitor in the CME market for state licensure. For now, the case is NOT over and with a bit of luck and appropriate administration of justice, has the potential to turn the tide on the ABMS MOC monopoly that is adversely impacting US physicians nationwide.

Westby Fisher, MD, Co-founder, Practicing Physicians of America

Hoping for A Christmas Miracle for All US Physicians

Imagine an end to the forced participation in the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) trademarked Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program required by all US academic (and many non-academic) hospital systems in the United States. Ending the unproven MOC program’s constant threat of loss of employment because of failure to make a MOC payment to one of the 24 member boards of the ABMS, or because of failure to participate in their repeated online or in-person testing has seemed impossible.

Until now.

January 15, 2025 is the date set for oral arguments before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in Lazarou v ABPN (No. 24-1994) antitrust case. If the judges rule favorably in the Plaintiffs’ favor, the complaint will finally go to discovery and jury trial. This case, if won, would set a precedent to legally challenge MOC for each of the other 23 member boards of the ABMS.

But all of us need to do our part. To put it bluntly, it will take a little bit of cash to help make this happen. About $11,000 more added to the GoFundMe page created for the legal efforts underway is needed for additional preparatory legal work. Depending on how many physicians give, that might be as little needed as $1 or $5 per doctor.

Please don’t turn away. Give now. Even the smallest donation can make a huge difference, Please help us bring this lengthy legal effort to fruition.

Thank you and

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

Wes Fisher, MD

A Bad Prescription for American Patients

Practicing Physicians of America, and the the Free2Care coalition are staunchly against the passage of the highly partisan Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Like many health care measures before it, there are consequences in the bill that will decrease access and innovation, and increase consolidation and costs for all patients, all while disproportionately harming those with cancer and chronic disease. 

Free2Care experts prescribe four major issues with the bill and legislative priorities that would actually address the issues of affordability and accessibility of health care.

  1. Pharmaceutical middlemen—Pharmacy Benefit Managers aka PBMs—  collect legalized kickbacks and are responsible for 80% of the cost of insulin, get a gift in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Almost 50% of what is called “deficit reductions” come from repealing the Trump Administration’s ‘rebate’ rule. The rebate rule would have forced PBMs to pass on the ‘rebates’ they collected to seniors at the prescription counter instead of pocketing the rebates themselves.

Rebate is not the appropriate word for the money collected by the PBMs from the drug manufacturers: the PBMs were granted an exemption from the anti-kickback statute in 2003, and thus rebates are actually kickbacks. . Remarkably, the kickback collecting PBMs get to create the formularies—the lists of drugs covered by the insurance companies. A bigger kickback lands a drugmaker on the formulary, so more expensive medications are preferred for the PBMs and the insurers who have now consolidated with the PBM, and in some cases, even the big box pharmacies. The cost of the kickbacks is in the range of $200 Billion per year, all of this is explained elegantly by attorney David Balto.

By denying the “rebate rule” and declaring it to “pay for” new spending, the Inflation Reduction Act is a win for PBMs at the expense of seniors’ savings at the pharmacy counter. Former DNC chair Howard Dean, himself a physician, recognized the gimmick behind using the “rebate” rule as a pay-for.

Furthermore, Pharmacy Benefit Managers have been the driving force behind the cost of many medications necessary to sustain life for patients with chronic diseases or pre-existing conditions. Like Insulin. 

A 2019 bi-partisan report, produced by Senators Wyden and Grassley, found that PBM fees and rebates were responsible for 80% of the cost of the inflated cost of insulin.

2. Chronic disease and cancer patients will lose access, consolidation will increase, and costs will rise down the road.

A new Avalare study has found that part of the Build Back Better Act, now folded into the Inflation Reduction Act, will reduce payments for Medicare providers that furnish Part B drugs (drugs that are given by infusion and therefore delivered in a clinical setting ) by an average of 40%. Drugs for cancer, immunodeficiencies, and rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis fall into this category. 

Remarkably, the payment reduction is substantially higher for physicians in independent practices as opposed to those owned by hospitals. Besides the fundamental unfairness, the increased reduction will lead to the early retirement of independent oncologists and rheumatologists, and the continued consolidation of medical practices into ownership by hospitals. 

Consolidation has been shown to increase costs in a Stanford study. Worse yet, quality of care, and the all-important personal and attentive care required by the vulnerable, especially among the elderly are decreased when independent practices are forced to sell out to hospital systems.

3. Fewer cures and treatments for patients with cancer, chronic and rare diseases. 

The bill before the house imposes a 95% excise tax on innovative drug manufacturers unless they accept a price set by the HHS Secretary.  

This is not negotiation, it is price controls.

A Univ. of Chicago September 2021 study estimates up to a 60 percent decrease in R&D and up to 342 fewer new medication approvals. Loss of life from loss of innovation over the next decade is conservatively estimated as 20 times more than COVID-19 deaths at the time of their study. There is no measure in loss of quality of life as many new meds have immeasurable improvement on quality of life.

Oncology patients will be the hardest hit as half of the medication pipeline is for cancer medications. Innovative research for cancer sufferers will decrease by nearly ten times the amount that the cancer moonshot increased it

Small and emerging companies in California alone will have an 88%         reduction in new medications brought to market according to the California Life Sciences Association. This will fundamentally shift the formation of small emerging bio markets across the United States.

4. Higher prices for other medications will lead to higher premiums and overall health care costs.

The Inflation Reduction Act would control the prices of a chosen set of medications. On August 4, the CBO confirmed that price controls will lead to higher prices for new prescription medications. 

In turn, all Americans will pay higher insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs at their pharmacies. Only the wealthiest Americans will be able to afford many cures. 

PPA and Free2care have been supportive of the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, with bipartisan provisions to lower drug prices while increasing transparency for PBMs and preserving innovation. We are supportive of Senator Wyden’s call to have both CMS and the FTC intervene in the practices of corrupt PBM middlemen.  

We are strongly supportive of Chairman Pallone’s HR-7666, which increases access for mental health and substance use disorder among other measures while reining in PBM.  HR-7666 has the added benefit of having passed the house by more than 400 votes, thus demonstrating the call for the bipartisanship that America craves.

The Inflation Reduction Act will be harmful to the long-term health of Americans, especially those with chronic and pre-existing diseases. We call on all house members to reject this bill and ask the Senate to get back to the drawing board, this time reaching across the aisle.

______________

PPA is part of Free2Care, a coalition of member organizations dedicated to the doctor-patient relationship and making healthcare affordable, accessible, and of high quality. The 34 member organizations represent over 8 million Americans and include over 70 thousand physicians. 

In the recent request for comment by the Federal Trade Commission, the Free2Care Coalition represented approximately 75% of the 24,100 comments calling for a thorough investigation into the anti-competitive practices and behavior exhibited by pharmacy benefit managers.

 HHS called for comments on the behavior of GPOs and Free2Care submitted comments representing 80% of the 11,930 submitted

For media inquiries contact info@free2care.org

The White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health: A practicing pediatrician’s comments

Let’s grow and eat what we grow!

The White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health is a national effort to reinvent all of our nation’s nutrition, hunger, and health policies with inclusive input from stakeholders. Briefly, the goals are to:

Improve food access and affordability

Integrate nutrition and health

Empower all consumers to make and have access to healthy choices

Support physical activity for all

Enhance nutrition and food security research

In 2021, former USDA Secretary Ann Veneman, Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Dean Dariush Mozaffarian, and former USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, co-proposed the idea of a White House Conference Hunger, Nutrition & Health.

On May 4th, President Biden formally announced the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.

This is a first-time-in-50-year historic effort to reinvent our nation’s policies related to food with inclusive input from public stakeholders.

PPA, with thousands of physicians and a board comprised of two pediatricians, a pediatric psychiatrist, a cardiologist and two surgeons can see the value of this conference to all of our patients.

Thus PPA shared the comment link on social media channels, reaching thousands of physicians and patients and other stakeholders

As a co-founder of PPA and a pediatrician , a longtime volunteer for wellness in her community’s schools, and a volunteer teacher for organic gardening, Dr Marion Mass submitted the following

  1. We need enriching foods to be available in areas that can be considered food deserts. We need opportunities to exercise, and to meditate for mental health to be available in areas that are economically disadvantaged.

It would be best if this were to be achieved with those who live in those areas to become entrepreneurs and small business owners themselves, and to create sustainable jobs for others.  

I suggest that for any US citizen to make a donation, either of money, tangible resources or time to a start-up business or school in an opportunity zone (https://www.1031crowdfunding.com/qualified-opportunity-zones?leadsource=GoogleSEM-OppZones-DT&c_searchKeyword=opportunity%20zone&gclid=CjwKCAjwoMSWBhAdEiwAVJ2ndufpH3doLxJoUNByvVD5UwBfVRcX1NPnEkiMnB6mpo9HAlP0RWbymBoCEnIQAvD_BwE) a tax credit for this donation be applied to the donor.

Imagine if a Garden center, or a lumber company in a more advantaged zip code is incentivized to donate products to create a meditation garden, a yoga center, a walking path, an organic food repository in an opportunity zone?  This is a win for everyone.  It will create connections between communities in a very personal way.  It will lift up those hungering for opportunity.  It will create jobs all while promoting health.

  • We need to empower schools to utilize local resources when possible to get local good nutritional products into schools.  Local products should be given equal opportunity to sell to public schools and override existing food contracts that work with corporate vendors.
  • We need to allow and empower schools to reduce food waste by allowing them and encouraging them to compost for their own gardens, to donate whole fruits that were given out for school meals but untouched by student mouths.  It was a wonderful idea that in school lunches, a piece of fruit or a veggie must be given out.  However, much of this food is sadly wasted.  If an apple or an orange were untouched on a lunch tray, it ought to be possible to gather it and donate to local food pantries.
  • Schools need to be teaching about the history and culture of food and gardening within their history, literature and other classes as well as in home economics and nutrition classes.  For example, the Spanish dish of Paella came into existence in the following way:  During the Spanish Inquisition, those that had been forced to convert to Catholicism were still fearful, as many were ostracized, or even executed.  They cooked paella over an open fire, a dish utilizing pork, pork fat and shellfish, items forbidden in other religions.  While a shameful epoch in the Catholic church, knowing about the dish and even eating it or tasting it as part of a class would be a more enriching experience than a mere lecture.

Many foods that are international and quite delicious ought to be a part of home economics classes.  Mexican Tamales, Indian Pulao, Persian kuku, Puerto Rican black beans and rice, Moroccan couscous, Ethiopian groundnut stew are all complex dishes with plant based ingredients and quite healthful.  Students being taught about the rich history of food and origins of ingredients of these foods would not only improve their health but increase pride in individual student’s cultures.

  • Enriched funding for cooperative extensions and agriculture based colleges that help create gardens in schools and communities, and provide teaching in these gardens.  (This idea is from Tara Meritt a primary care and sports medicine physician from near Athens Georgia, home of UGA)
  • We need to have an investigation to discover how social media sites and apps might have algorithms that are distorting body image leading to children and teens unhealthy perceptions of their bodies, and unrealistic expectations of how they believe they are ‘supposed to look’.  The same sites need to be investigated to ensure that gentle healthy habits and messages are represented, and unhealthy habits are discouraged.  

    This same method needs to be employed on social media with respect to parenting.           Sadly, in America, so much of parenting has become a contest of sorts, with many feeling as though they are not measuring up.  Parents need to be empowered to know that they can succeed as parents without feeling the shame and guilt of not being ‘perfect parents’.  As a pediatrician, this is something mothers discuss with me all the time, but I rarely see discussed.  Especially mothers feel as though they are not as good as the perfect mom they see on social media.  Algorithms regarding this phenomenon must be explored.

How the ABIM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Monopoly Was Created

Recently, there have been a rash of proclamations by unaccountable non-profit physician credentialing organizations (Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), the American Boards of  Internal Medicine (ABIM) , Family Medicine and Pediatrics), and the American Medical Association to come to the public’s rescue by de-credentialing U.S. physicians they accuse of spreading misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Physicians have seen this medical monopoly-building playbook before.

The video below reviews the antitrust, monopoly-making activities of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). The discrediting of certain U.S. physicians as “cheaters” and disseminators of “disinformation” serve as smokescreens to their monopoly-building activities using working physicians’ fees. As physicians worked tirelessly to care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ABIM redistributed physician testing fees for their “social justice” initiatives, most significant of which was lobbing Congress so their separate Maintenance of Certification (MOC) continuous testing product would be a never-ending source of revenue and data metrics used by the Medical Industrial Complex. Sadly, this unilaterally-imposed life-long busy-work mandate on younger, more vulnerable ABMS-board certified US physicians has harmed hundreds of physicians and tens of thousands of patients as physicians burn out and leave the profession.

For all patients who wonder why health care prices are so high and access to a board-certified physician has become so difficult at large academic institutions, look no further than the organizations above.