Pubdate: Sun, 22 Jun 2014
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2014 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Debra J. Saunders
Page: E3

DOC DRUG-TESTING IS A PLOY

"Pee in a cup" is a phrase you should prepare to hear frequently this
election season. A requirement that doctors be subject to random drug
and alcohol testing is the curb-appeal provision in a measure that
will be on the California ballot in November.

The brains behind the initiative titled the Troy and Alana Pack
Patient Safety Act - named after two Danville children killed by a
substance-abusing driver in 2003 - clearly figured out that voters are
more likely warm to the part that promises drug tests for doctors than
the measure's more important provision, which would lift the state's
$250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards to $1.1 million.

New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney wrote that political consultant
Chris Lehane essentially admitted to him that the explosive notion of
drug-testing doctors came up, almost by chance, in a focus group.
"Everyone in the room was flabbergasted that they weren't already
tested," Lehane crowed.

"When you get to the point where you're writing ballot initiatives
based on polls, well, you're solely putting things on the ballot
because you know you can win them," observed Sam Singer, whose public
relations firm is working for the opposition. As far as Singer is
concerned, the measure is "a payday for the bottom-of-the-barrel of
plaintiff attorneys."

There is an argument for raising the cap. It's been stuck at $250,000
since Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law 38 years ago. But I object
to the dishonest claims of the campaign.

Fact-checkers may want to examine 30-second spots on the Pack Act
website. Three "pee in a cup" videos claim, "The CA medical Board
estimates 18 percent of doctors abuse drugs or alcohol." Oh, really?

The campaign sent me a March 2000 California Medical Board article
that says that "many believe" that 15 percent of the general
population has substance problems, while some experts believe "the
lifetime risk for developing a problem of abuse among health care
professionals may be as high as 18 percent." That's a guesstimate, not
research. Also, it's a lifetime number. The paper also notes that,
even with a lifetime risk of substance abuse of up to 18 percent,
about 1 to 2 percent need treatment at any given time.

The California Medical Board wrote in January that it does not have
"any empirical data" on the number of physicians with substance abuse
problems.

Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog, which supports the Pack measure,
told me, "Even if it's 1 percent, it's too much." If there isn't
enough data, blame the medical profession.

What's the matter with testing doctors because their behavior raises
red flags? Court answered that random drug testing works because it
serves as a deterrent. "Unless you have a serious problem, you're not
going to be caught impaired." Any doctor who does test dirty, he
added, clearly has a problem.

I might be open to Court's argument if the initiative didn't do such
a dirty job on doctors. It's wrong to tell the public that nearly 1
physician in 5 likely is boozed up or high. The campaign throws out
big numbers. Quoth Consumer Watchdog: "As many as 440,000 people die
each year from preventable medical negligence." That number is based
on extrapolation of other studies. It is supposed to represent
hospital deaths, and includes death by contaminated equipment. It
does not present hard numbers on deaths due to physician substance abuse.

I asked Court: Do you want to drugtest nurses, too? He answered, "I
think this is something we're starting with doctors because they're
the ones who write prescriptions."

Troy and Alana's father, Bob Pack, told me that he had been working to
put together this measure for years. He is the victim of prescription
drug abuse; the ballot measure requires that medical providers consult
a prescription-drug history database.

And: "The state valued my children's lives at $250, 000," said Pack.
"I thought that was appalling. I never heard of that law. You can't
even get to court for $250,000."

Pack blames doctors at Kaiser for prescribing painkillers to the nanny
who plowed into his children.

For their part, the political consultants who are making merry with
their "pee-in-a-cup" videos should know better. They have chosen to
forgo an honest policy debate to take cheap shots at the healing
class. In the name of safety. "There is a giant irony," said Singer,
that Lehane, who represented cyclist doping king Lance Armstrong,
"turns out to be the No. 1 advocate of drugtesting doctors. That's
kind of evil."

Or it's pee in a cup.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt