|
|
|
|
|
|
TOA
President's
Update
|
|
By John T. Gill, MD
President, Texas Orthopaedic Association
This
message is for our friends of orthopaedics in the industry.
The Texas Orthopaedic
Association invites you to schedule and budget for the 2008 Annual
Meeting and Scientific Session. The meeting will occur May 22 - 24,
2008 at The Westin Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas. |
|
|
Our Annual Meeting and
Scientific Session is the orthopaedic industry’s best resource for
networking with Texas orthopaedic surgeons. The conference regularly
attracts 150-200 orthopaedists from across the state and features
up-to-date information on trends in orthopaedics, hands-on workshops,
resident awards, and social events.
Please click
here for
the description of our new Gold, Silver, and Bronze Sponsorship Levels
as well as the Exhibit Application Form. Please note that all
opportunities are available on a first come, first serve basis. Sign up
early to achieve maximum visibility!
Please complete and
mail the registration form with your sponsorship fee to TOA at 401 West
15th Street, Ste. 820, Austin, TX 78701. We thank you for
your continued support of the Texas Orthopaedic Association meetings.
If you have any questions, please contact the TOA administrative office
at (512) 370-1505.
We look
forward to seeing you in May in San Antonio!
[top]
[back
to e-card archive page]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAOS News - Heparin Issue Shines Light On Need For Overseas Inspections
|
|
According to the New
York Times, concerns about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s
(FDA’s) ability to inspect and monitor foreign drug manufacturing
plants have arisen in the wake of 19 deaths that have been linked to
contaminated heparin. FDA inspected 13 of 566 plants in |
|
China that export pharmaceuticals to
the United States. The U.S. Senate recently passed a budget resolution
giving the agency an additional $375 million. However, President
George W. Bush has threatened to veto appropriations that go beyond
his requests, and one House leader states that additional money is
unlikely to help, as the agency lacks the infrastructure to carry out
its mission. Some in Congress are considering the implementation of a
user-fee system to help pay for foreign inspections, but other experts
argue that such a system may pressure investigators to become more lax
with those who pay their salaries. Read more by clicking
here.
[top]
[back
to e-card archive page]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worth Repeating - Cross-border
Purchasing And Re-Importing Of Synvisc
|
|
Originally appeared in the
December 10th, 2007 TOA E-Connect,
but we feel that patient safety could be at risk and this
information needs to be repeated.
Dear Valued
Customer,
I am writing to
inform you of an emergency practice in our industry which gives us
cause for concern. Recently, there has been a
|
|
significant increase in the volume of Synvisc being re-imported into the
US from foreign
geographies. While the cross-border distributors involved often
claim to be purchasing Synvisc direct from Genzyme, in
fact they are not.
We know that much
of the Synvisc being sourced for this purpose is coming from the
Middle East and Europe. We have become aware of several instances
where this product has been tampered with and re-packaged with
photocopied US product information. We have always been concerned
about the quality of product that is purchased outside of our
established distribution channels, since we cannot ensure that
proper storage and shipping conditions have been maintained. These
concerns are substantially magnified in cases where the product has
been opened or otherwise tampered with.
We appreciate your
use of Synvisc and the confidence in our product that this use
demonstrates. There are established direct and wholesale channels for
the purchase of FDA approved Synvisc that provide a safe and effective
product. We encourage you to use these established channels to ensure
the safety and integrity of the product you are using.
Should you have any
questions as follow-up to this communication, please don’t hesitate to
contact your local Synvisc sales representative or call Synvisc customer
service at 1-888-3-SYNVISC.
Sincerely,
C. Ann Merrifield
President,
Genzyme Biosurgery
www.genzyme.com
Tel 617-494-8484
Is the product being
sold by the cross-border distributors U.S. labeled Synvisc?
No.
Genzyme only distributes Synvisc in the U.S. direct to physicians or
medical practice customers or through our established wholesale
vendors. If Synvisc is being sold via the internet or by distributors
that are not approved Genzyme wholesale partners it is not Synvisc that
complies with U.S. labeling requirements. To the extent that the
product being sold by these cross-border distributors contains FDA
approved product and patient labeling; it has been purchased outside of
the U.S. tampered with and illegally repackaged.
Where is the product
coming from?
Our
evidence indicates that much of the product that has most recently been
sold by these cross-border distributors has been sourced from the Middle
East, Turkey, and Germany.
If the product is not
U.S. labeled Synvisc how can it contain the FDA approved product and
patient labeling?
We believe
that many of the cross-border distributors are purchasing Synvisc in
other parts of the world, re-packaging it and replacing the non-U.S.
labeling with a photocopy of the FDA approved package insert. This
practice causes us (Genzyme) great concern because to ensure a safe and
effective product, the product must not be tampered with. This also
poses a potential safety hazard to the patient, as there is no way for
us to ensure that this product was handled appropriately.
Why does Genzyme care
if I buy Synvisc labeled for non-U.S. use?
Once our
product has been sold to our approved vendors outside of the U.S. we
lose control of our ability to track the product and assure that it has
been handled properly to ensure safety. We have no way of ensuring that
any of the product that is being provided by these cross-border
distributors has been handled using Genzyme’s approved distribution
methods. Therefore the product being offered by these cross-border
distributors may be unsafe or ineffective. These concerns are magnified
due to recent situation were the packaging has been opened and tampered
with.
What is Genzyme doing
to stop this dangerous activity?
Genzyme is
currently working with its global distributors to stop this activity and
ensure that Synvisc is only being distributed through approved
distributors.
[top]
[back
to e-card archive page]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
Ruling
Favors Orthopedists On Definition Of The Foot
|
|
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
When is the ankle part of the foot?
Never, according to the Texas Medical Association, which is
celebrating |
|
a state appeals court ruling that it
interprets as saying the two body parts are distinct. Friday's ruling
— which reverses a lower court's decision — says the state board that
licenses podiatrists exceeded its authority when it created a
definition of the foot that includes the ankle.
The ankle-foot debate has raged for years between medical doctors and
podiatrists, who have both claimed the ankle as their bodily turf and
fought over it in courtrooms. The debate has reached the point that
the two sides can disagree about the existence of the ankle.
"You don't have an ankle," said Mark Hanna, a lawyer for the Texas
Podiatric Medical Association, which is a party in the case with the
board. "The foot actually includes the ankle. If you took the foot off
the leg, there is nothing lying there that's the ankle."
That makes no sense, said Dr. David Teuscher, an orthopedic surgeon in
Beaumont who said treating the ankle is complicated enough to require
medical school training.
"If they say the ankle doesn't exist, why do they want to operate on
it?" asked Teuscher, immediate past president of the Texas Orthopaedic
Association. "Everyone knows what an ankle is."
The Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners bypassed the
Legislature to create its ankle-is-part-of-the-foot definition in
2001. Podiatrists say they've been treating ankles for decades and
accuse doctors of trying to limit competition. The medical association
says podiatrists should stick to corns, calluses and diabetic foot
care.
The podiatrists plan to appeal the court's decision — which they don't
interpret as saying the ankle and the foot are different, Hanna said
At stake is the job description of the state's 900 podiatrists.
"If people wish to practice medicine, they should attend and complete
medical school," said the Texas Medical Association's president, Dr.
William Hinchey. The ruling "protects Texas patients."
Orthopedists like Teuscher must complete four years of medical school,
plus a one-year internship and a four-year residency. Podiatrists must
complete four years of podiatry school and an internship of at least
one year, though some have more extensive training.
Thomas Zgonis, a San Antonio podiatrist, completed four years of
training after podiatry school and specializes in reconstructive foot
and ankle surgery.
"I have saved all these diabetic patients' feet" from being amputated,
he said. "All of a sudden you wake up one day and you question this?"
He said that if he were told he couldn't practice on the ankle, "I
would have to quit my practice. It would be a disaster. These people
are crazy."
The debate is a traditional medical turf battle, said state Sen. Bob
Deuell, R-Greenville, a physician and the vice chairman of the Senate
Committee on Health and Human Services. "There are battles between
ophthalmologists and optometrists, and there are battles between
orthopedists and podiatrists."
In this battle, Deuell sides with the orthopedists.
"There are some (podiatrists) out there who are very good above the
foot," he said, "but they've never convinced me that it was possible
to have the entire profession be taught to do that."
The podiatry board decided to define the foot in 2001 because the
state law that defines podiatry does not define what a foot is. The
board said that caused confusion among podiatrists, insurance
companies and hospitals. The board's definition included the tibia
(shin bone) and fibula (calf bone) "in their articulation with the
talus and all bones to the toes."
But then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn rejected that, writing in
a formal opinion that it "unreasonably extends the practice of
podiatry to include treatment of the tibia and fibula, parts of the
body that are not located in the foot."
But District Judge Darlene Byrne in Travis County disagreed, siding
with the podiatrists. Last week's ruling by the Texas 3rd Court of
Appeals overturned that.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; (512) 445-3548
[top] [back
to e-card archive page] |
|
| |
|
| |
2008 Update on Workers’ Compensation Networks and Fee Guidelines - A
Personal Perspective
|
|
(A personal
perspective)
By Stephen Norwood, MD
Over the past several years, orthopaedic surgeons, as well as
most practicing physicians in Texas have been put through the
meat grinder when it comes to treating injured workers. It
would be fair to say that many have just given up on the whole
business. I dropped out for
|
|
several years but have been treating
comp patients again over the past two years after the legislature agreed
to re-configure the Division of Worker’s Compensation, to fall under the
management of the Texas Department of Insurance. This legislation
included the certification of new Worker’s Compensation Networks, as an
employer-selected alternative to the typical non-network system.
Although it has been some time since I served as TOA Work Comp committee
chair, I have continued to work behind the scenes participating with the
TMA ad hoc Work Comp committee and several workgroups for TDI and DWC. I
testified for TMA and TOA on several successful Comp clean-up bills in
the last session, the most notable having to do with Texas-licensed,
appropriate-specialty peer review. After much prodding from others, I
even helped form a physician-sponsored Work Comp Network.
One of the great fears that most physicians had about Networks entering
the picture was that they would discount from the already poor fee
schedule. In fact, that is exactly what some of them initially tried to
do. The worst example was a pre-certification notice that a major
group-health carrier was planning to pay 85% Medicare for these
services. Fortunately, that never panned out because essentially no
providers signed up, but it had a chilling effect, nonetheless. Limited
numbers of doctors signed contracts with new networks that discounted
between 5-20% off the 125% Medicare rate. When TDI reviewed some of
these discounted networks, they discovered that there were often missing
gaps in the specialty provider panels, or what TMA would call
“Inadequate Networks”.
There are now 32 TDI-Certified Worker’s Compensation Networks, not to be
confused with “voluntary networks” which will be phased out. In other
“network” states like California and Oregon, it has taken five to six
years for these markets and products to stabilize. It is believed that
up to 70% of Texas Comp care will eventually occur in a network setting,
so there is a transition going on. Although the Texas Association of
Business was the catalyst demanding networks in the first place, most
businesses have taken a wait-and-see approach to these products, and
discounts from standard insurance premium rates have been small so far.
Even so, the big boys like Texas Mutual have converted over 20% of their
customers and are beginning to develop a track record and understand the
cost-savings involved.
To be frank, my whole interest in this business was to get the payments
to physicians increased, and the certification of the Physicians
Cooperative of Texas (PCT) went a long way in pushing that concept. Even
though we were initially only TDI-Certified for Austin/San Antonio and
Dallas, the contracts paid well above the fee schedule, and the
physician panels were robust with the necessary specialists. The major
competitors learned quickly that physicians would no longer sign any
contract thrown across their desks, and most gradually increased their
rates to the fee schedule level and above. Meanwhile, we have been
fighting forever for relief from the misguided 125% Medicare physician
fee schedule, and finally have achieved some success. The brand-new DWC
fee schedule will pay approximately 139% for E&M and 174% for Surgeries
beginning March 2008.
This will lead to at least some resurgence of interest in physician
participation. Most doctors decide either to take Work Comp or not. Once
a provider commits to treat injured workers again, they will want to
consider signing perhaps two or three of the Network contracts,
depending on participation of local businesses. Obviously, a combination
of decent payment and the expectation of a reasonable number of
referrals are important in contracting.
My network, Physicians Cooperative of Texas, was acquired in November
2007 by Omni Health Systems, who operate two of the largest Comp
networks in Oregon and Montana. They have an excellent track record of
paying physicians well, and share essentially all of the core values of
our physician sponsored network. They will operate as Majoris Health
Systems in Texas. I will continue to serve as Medical Director and look
forward to their experience in network growth and employer contracting.
The intent of House Bill 7 three years ago was to make Worker’s
Compensation look a lot more like Group-Health plans. Only time will
tell if that can be achieved, but there are signs of hope with physician
payment increases and competition in the network market. With the
addition of electronic claims handling (finally), even improvement on
the “Hassle Factor” side of Comp might improve. As always, the glass is
half full.
[top]
[back
to e-card archive page]
|
|
|
|
|
You have subscribed to this newsletter. If your
contact information has changed, please update
your account. Thank you!
|
|