 |
Job Opportunities |
Top story: Despite surplus, state budget slashes Medi-Cal rates
The California Legislature passed a $234 billion budget on Friday that will cut Medi-Cal payments to physicians and other providers by 10 percent. The cuts were originally passed as part of the 2011-2012 budget, but were held up in court as the California Medical Association and other plaintiffs filed suit to stop the draconian cuts.
Also in this issue:
- Scope of practice bills to be heard on July 2, urge your legislator to OPPOSE these bills
- California Supreme Court rules in peer review case
- CMA files amicus brief in MICRA constitutionality case
- We Care for California: An impressive show of force
- Federal Medi-Cal audits to begin in June
- Meaningful use payment adjustments are coming soon
- Reminder: Deadline to avoid 2014 e-prescribing penalty
is June 30 - CMA gives UCSF $10,000 to start medical student
scholarship fund - New member benefit: Union Bank discounted services for physicians, medical staff and medical students
- Reminder: Foundation leadership award nominations
due June 20 -
Upcoming webinars:
Featured member benefit:
Epocrates: California Medical Association members save 30 percent on all Epocrates mobile and online products.
ADVERTISEMENT
1. Despite surplus, state budget slashes Medi-Cal rates
The California Legislature passed a $234-billion budget on Friday that will cut Medi-Cal payments to physicians and other providers by 10 percent. The cuts were originally passed as part of the 2011-2012 budget, but were held up in court as the California Medical Association (CMA) and other plaintiffs filed suit to stop the draconian cuts.
In January of this year, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit court ruled that the state could move forward with the rate cuts, despite an earlier district court ruling that found that the cuts would irreparably harm the millions of patients who rely on Medi-Cal for health care. CMA and the other plaintiffs in the case had requested a rehearing from the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied.
Although the state is in a much better financial situation than it was in 2011 when the cuts were first passed, the 2013-2014 budget includes roughly $1 billion in Medi-Cal provider rate cuts annually.
On Saturday, the California Legislature passed legislation (AB X1-1) that would expand Medi-Cal to more than 1.4 million state residents under the Affordable Care Act. The irony of slashing rates while promising coverage to more than a million new patients has not gone unnoticed. If the state moves forward with the cuts, particularly at a time when millions of new patients will be eligible for the program, access to care will be decimated in our state, undermining the success of federal health reform.
The budget does restore dental and mental health benefits under the Medi-Cal program.
The final agreement includes $206 million to improve mental health services, including $142 million in one-time general fund money; $51 million in non-general fund money in the coming fiscal year and about $150 million the following fiscal year to boost grants for CalWORKS, California's welfare-to-work program; and $16.9 million in general fund money in the coming fiscal year and $77 million the following fiscal year to help partially restore Denti-Cal benefits for adults. Denti-Cal is the Medi-Cal dental program.
Even before the cuts, California's Medi-Cal provider payment rates are some of lowest in the nation. Low reimbursement rates have driven many of California’s providers from the program. As a result, 56 percent of Medi-Cal patients report difficulty finding a doctor. If these cuts are not stopped, Medi-Cal will become nothing more than a broken promise of access to care.
“What good does it do our communities if they have health care coverage, but cannot get in to see a doctor?" said Senator Ricardo Lara, author of SB 640, one of two CMA-sponsored bills (along with AB 900, authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo) that will stop the Medi-Cal cuts. "If we want healthy communities we need to provide access to quality and preventative care."
CMA has joined an unprecedented coalition of physicians, dentists, health care workers and hospitals that will continue working to stop the cuts. The coalition, called “We Care for California," includes the largest statewide organizations representing physicians, dentists, hospitals and health care workers, as well as health plans, first responders, caregivers and other health providers.
CMA and the We Care for California coalition will aggressively push for a solution to the provider cut before the end of session.
“Every provider in California’s vast health care delivery system unequivocally agrees with the simple notion that more Californians must have access to quality health care – when and where they need it – but that quality care is going to be less available and affordable in California if we continue to cut our system to the bone,” said Paul R. Phinney, M.D., CMA President.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
2. Scope of practice bills to be heard on July 2, urge your legislator to OPPOSE these bills
The California Medical Association (CMA) is urging physicians to contact legislators and ask for NO votes on SB 491, SB 492 and SB 493. These three bills will expand scope of practice of nonphysician practitioners and remove necessary physician supervision, ultimate harming patients and decreasing quality of care. These bills may be heard in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee as early as July 2.
Senate Bill 491 (Hernandez) would allow nurse practitioners to open practices without any oversight from a trained medical doctor and prescribe dangerous, addictive drugs without supervision. While an important part of the health care delivery system, nurse practitioners simply do not have adequate training or years of education that physicians do in order to be qualified to practice medicine without physician involvement.
Senate Bill 492 (Hernandez) would allow optometrists to provide primary care service including diagnosing diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension. Under this bill, optometrists would be able to examine, prevent, diagnose and treat any disease, condition or disorder of the visual system, the human eye and adjacent related structures.
Senate Bill 493 (Hernandez) would allow advanced practice pharmacists to evaluate and manage diseases and health conditions without physician consultation. Additionally, any pharmacist would be able to furnish prescription smoking cessation drugs and devices with known harmful side effects including depression and in some cases, suicide.
Legislators need to know the true impact these bills would have in their districts.
Your calls are imperative to help us stop these bills and protect patients. We ask that you and your colleagues call, fax or email your legislators TODAY and urge them to vote NO on SB 491, SB 492 and SB 493!
For more information, including talking points and a sample letter, see CMA's grassroots action center.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
3. California Supreme Court rules in peer review case
The California Supreme Court recently issued a long awaited ruling in a case involving peer review and medical staff self-governance, El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center (no. S196830).
In this case, the hospital board at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center ignored and overrode the medical staff executive committee's (MEC) recommendation to reappoint a physician on staff. The physician then invoked his right to a joint review committee hearing to challenge the hospital’s termination of his privileges.
Frustrated that the hospital overrode its decision that the physician should remain on staff, the MEC decided that since it was the hospital that wanted to terminate him, then it should be the hospital to prosecute the peer review action. Subsequently the hospital's lay governing board appointed the hearing officer and members of the review committee, which ultimately terminated the physician's privileges.
Under the medical staff bylaws, however, only the MEC has authority to determine the joint review process, including the appointment of the hearing officer and joint review committee members. At issue in this case was whether state law allows the MEC to delegate this responsibility, or if by doing so the physician's rights were violated.
On June 6, the California Supreme Court ruled that the mere fact that the hospital appointed the joint review committee and hearing officer did not violate fair procedure.
CMA had filed a joint amicus brief with the American Medical Association (AMA) to explain the carefully balanced statutory relationship between a hospital governing body and its medical staff. A broad coalition of two dozen current or former chiefs of staff throughout California also had filed a separate amicus brief focusing on the practical aspects of maintaining self-governance and working with hospital administration. Together, the amicus briefs argue that the hospital in El-Attar failed to respect the medical staff self-governance rights when it unilaterally appointed the review panel and hearing officer in a peer review action.
Notwithstanding the fact that the court ruled against the individual physician in this case, CMA believes the court’s El-Attar decision can be cited to affirm some important principles concerning peer review. To be sure, the specific result in this case is limited to a unique set of facts that makes it less likely to apply broadly, namely, that the MEC delegated its powers to the hospital and thereby facilitated, if not was complicit in, the violation of the medical staff bylaws. The court acknowledged:
The situation would be different if the Governing Board had exercised this power [to appoint the JRC panel and hearing officer] in the face of active resistance by the MEC. If the Board had appointed the hearing participants despite the medical staff's own efforts to do so, the Board would have violated the provisions of the peer review statute providing that it is the peer review body or its designees that determine the manner in which a judicial review hearing is held. Although we need not decide the issue, such a usurpation of the medical staff's power of appointment may provide grounds to presume that the hearing participants were biased, for in such a case there would be greater reason to think that the Board sought to stack the review panel with participants who would rule in its favor.
Furthermore, despite finding that the physician was not deprived of fair procedure under the specific circumstances, the El-Attar opinion makes some keen observations about the peer review system and potential for abuse by hospitals:
There is certainly the potential for a hospital's governing body to abuse the power of appointment in a way that would deprive a physician of a fair hearing. A hospital's governing body could undoubtedly seek to select hearing officers and panel members biased against the physician. It might even do so because it wishes to remove a physician from a hospital staff for reasons having no bearing on quality of care. But where, as here, the medical staff has left to the hospital 's governing body the task of selecting the participants in the judicial review hearing, we are not persuaded that we must presume any hearing officer or panel member appointed by the governing body is likely to be biased.
Finally, the court added a “cautionary note” about misreading its decision. It explained:
Although we hold that the assumed violation of Hospital's bylaws in this case was not material, we do not suggest that such bylaws are meaningless or that a violation of a bylaws provision that implements procedural protections above and beyond those specifically mandated by the Legislature could never be found material. Moreover, we emphasize that even when a violation of the bylaws is immaterial, that does not mean it is irrelevant. The violating entity's decision to depart from procedures delineated in the bylaws may constitute evidence of that entity's bad intent, and it may bolster a claim that the entity has taken other action that deprived a physician of his or her right to a fair proceeding. (Opn. at 22.)
These statements reflect the court’s understanding that in reality hospitals can abuse the peer review process. Although CMA is disappointed that the court ruled against the physician, in the long term we believe that this opinion can be used in a positive way to further bolster the importance of fair hearing rights.
The California Supreme Court is also set to hear Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals (no. S205568) this year, another case involving peer review and medical staff self-governance. The Fahlen case came to the court last fall, when it agreed to review a decision from an intermediate state appellate court in Fresno. The lower court’s decision addressed the availability of remedies to physicians who claim retaliation for whistleblowing in the hospital setting.
Under a 2007 amendment to Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 that CMA sponsored, physicians who suffer retaliation in the form of adverse action on their medical staff privileges for having advocated for patient safety can sue the hospital for reinstatement and damages. The hospital defendant in Fahlen argued that the physician must first go through the protracted process of challenging the adverse peer review action in a writ proceeding before going to court to sue under section 1278.5.
CMA submitted an amicus brief in the Fahlen case to argue, and the lower appellate court agreed, that if the adverse peer review action arises out of whistleblower retaliation, section 1278.5’s separate remedy of an immediate court action should apply without exception. The lower court explained that whistleblower protections for physicians would be rendered illusory if physicians were prohibited from immediately challenging in court a sham peer review decision that serves as retaliation for whistleblowing. This important question will now be decided in the California Supreme Court. CMA intends to submit an amicus brief jointly with the AMA.
The California Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the state court system, and its decisions serve as statewide legal precedent.
MORE INFORMATION: For more information, see CMA On-Call documents #5206, “Peer Review – Fair Hearing Requirements," and #7007, "Retaliation by Managed Care Plans and Others."
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
4. CMA files amicus brief in MICRA constitutionality case
The California Medical Association (CMA), along with the California Dental Association, the California Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, filed an amicus brief with the California Court of Appeal defending the constitutionality of our state’s landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which allows non-economic damage awards up to $250,000. This case is just the latest in many legal challenges to MICRA that have been funded by trial lawyer groups from across the country.
In this case, Rashidi v. Moser, M.D., the jury awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in economic damages and $1,325,000 in non-economic (subjective pain and suffering) damages. The judge reduced the non-economic damages portion of the award to $250,000, in accordance with MICRA. The plaintiff appealed, asserting that MICRA’s cap on non-economic damages (Cal. Civ. Code SS 3333.2) violates California's constitutional guarantees of trial by jury, separation of powers and equal protection of the laws.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s arguments that MICRA’s non-economic damages cap “irrationally singles out the victims of medical malpractice for unfair treatment,” the cap is fairly and evenly applied. MICRA’s non-economic damages cap applies uniformly to any patient in California who is injured by medical malpractice. And every Californian benefits from the access to care that MICRA fosters.
The arguments the plaintiff asserts in this case have already been flatly rejected by the California Supreme Court. As the supreme court has explained, the Legislature clearly had a reasonable basis for drawing a distinction between economic and non-economic damages, providing that the desired cost savings should be obtained only by limiting the recovery of non-economic damages. MICRA reflects a strong public policy to contain the costs of malpractice insurance by controlling or redistributing liability for damages, maximizing the availability of medical services to meet the state’s health care needs.
Today, MICRA is working to keep premium rates in California low and stable, while states without liability reform are seeing dramatically higher premiums. Because of MICRA, California has a system that is affordable, compensates patients for their full medical and economic losses, and promotes patient safety and improved patient care.
MICRA allows patients with substantiated medical negligence claims to receive the following forms of compensation:
- Unlimited economic damages for past and future medical costs.
- Unlimited damages for lost wages, lifetime earning potential or any other economic losses.
- Unlimited punitive damages.
- Up to $250,000 for non-economic damages (pain and suffering).
MICRA also includes a sliding pay scale to control attorney contingency fees, ensuring that more money goes to patients, not lawyers. MICRA’s $250,000 cap on non-economic damages has proven to be an effective way of limiting meritless lawsuits and keeping health care costs lower, but has been targeted by the trial lawyers because it restricts the amount of money they can collect in attorney’s fees.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
5. We Care for California: An impressive show of force
In the largest health care rally ever held at the California State Capitol, an unprecedented coalition of physicians, nurses and other health care providers, as well as hospitals, insurers and Medi-Cal patients — approximately 8,000 strong — flocked to Sacramento on Tuesday to protest the 10 percent cuts to the Medi-Cal program set to take effect on July 1.
The “We are Medi-Cal” rally was sponsored by “We Care California” coalition, which chartered more than 100 busses from across the state to bring thousands of advocates to the Capitol for the rally and to meet with their legislators and urge them to stop the cuts.
With a little over 10 days left for the legislature to solidify the California budget, the rally sent an important message to the legislature: Every Californian will suffer if the $1 billion in health care cuts are allowed to take effect.
Master of ceremony for the afternoon speeches, Paul R. Phinney, M.D., president of the California Medical Association (CMA) and pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente in Sacramento, pumped his fist and asked the crowd “Are you with us?” The crowd roared back: “Yes!”
Dr. Phinney invited California legislators to the podium to sign a pledge to support legislation to reverse the Medi-Cal cuts. The legislators were led by Chair of the Assembly Health Committee and CMA member, Richard Pan, M.D. Dozens of legislators joined Dr. Pan on the podium and then in a show of support, lined up to sign a poster with their names as a commitment to vote to prevent the cuts.
Dr. Pan likened the cuts to ‘Scrooge taking away Tiny Tim’s crutches.’ "We've all been making do with these low Medi-Cal rates and now the state wants to take back what it has already paid us," he said, referring to retroactive payments the state expects for the past two years' worth of 10 percent cuts that have not been collected while the issue was argued in court.
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last month denied a request for an en banc review in the case of CMA et al. v. Douglas, filed by CMA in 2011 to stop the state from implementing the 10 percent cut included in the 2011-2012 state budget. This most recent action cleared the way for the state to implement the cuts.
Despite the state's improved budget outlook, the Governor’s budget includes roughly $1 billion per year in Medi-Cal provider rate cuts. If the state moves forward with these cuts, access to care will be devastated, not only for existing Medi-Cal patients, but also and the millions of patients that will be newly eligible for Medi-Cal under the Affordable Care Act in 2014.
CMA is currently co-sponsoring two bills, SB 640 (Lara) and AB 900 (Alejo), to stop the cuts.
Watsonville legislator, Luis Alejo, author of AB 900, told the crowd his bill would keep California's health care "safety net" in place. "These are our parents, our dads and mothers, our grandparents, people who gave so much their whole lives, and now they need the most critical care," he said.
Speaking before a large group of doctors assembled on the platform, Ruth Haskins, M.D., CMA trustee and OB-GYN with a solo practice in Folsom, said she will have to cut back the number of Medi-Cal patients she sees if the cuts go through.
Dr. Haskins sees 18 to 20 pregnant women in her practice at any one time. Current reimbursement rates are so low, she said, that it means no more than five of those can be Medi-Cal patients, a figure that would drop to three or four under the proposed cuts.
Her office already turns away at least two Medi-Cal patients each day. "I can only take so many, and then I gotta say, sorry, I gotta keep my lights on," Dr. Haskins said.
Increasingly, Medi-Cal has become a broken promise for access to health care. Despite the comprehensive benefits package written into law, the reality is that Medi-Cal patients are often unable to find a health care provider. Low reimbursement rates have driven many of California’s physicians from the program, with current rates already ranking lowest among all states.
The “We Care for California” Coalition – formed this year to expand access to quality health care for all Californians and to oppose further rate cuts to Medi-Cal. It is the state’s largest coalition of health care providers, including major statewide organizations representing physicians, dentists, hospitals, community clinics, first responders, health workers, caregivers, and major health plans.
So often in the past, health care advocates have been divided in their efforts, so focused on individual organizational interests that collective strength was weakened. “We Care for California” intends to stand undivided, using its collective influence in defense of health care. For more information about the coalition, visit www.wecareforca.org.
CMA is urging all physicians to contact their legislators and urge them to stop the cuts immediately. It is critical that the Legislature and Governor Brown understand how harmful these cuts would be for California’s poorest and most vulnerable patients. Call CMA's grassroots hotline at (877) 362-8455 to be connected with your legislator.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
6. Federal Medi-Cal audits to begin in June
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will be conducting audits of Medicaid claims in California beginning this month. The audits are part of the federal Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) Program, mandated by the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. The purpose of PERM is to estimate the number of payment errors made in the Medicaid programs of all 50 states and report back to Congress with an “improper payment estimate.”
Almost 700 California Medi-Cal claims will be selected for audit over the course of one year, approximately 167 claims per quarter. Audited claims will have paid dates between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013. Providers whose medical records have been selected for review will begin receiving written requests for medical records beginning this June and ending in July 2014.
CMS has contracted with the A+ Government Solutions, Inc. to perform the review. The contractor will collect the medical records from providers via secure fax and mail for the sampled claims and will perform the reviews to determine if claims were paid correctly.
The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is urging all providers to comply with requests for medical records from the federal contractors or DHCS. If you fail to submit the requested records, an error will be counted against California and you will be required to refund the claim payment amount to DHCS. Your cooperation will help ensure that the audit results are accurate and that California retains its much-needed federal matching monies for the Medi-Cal program.
For more details on the federal audits, see the DHCS PERM website. More information can also be located on the CMS PERM website.
For more information on Medi-Cal audits, see CMA On-Call document #7201, “Medi-Cal Audits.”
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
7. Meaningful use payment adjustments are coming soon
Beginning January 1, 2015, Medicare physicians who have not successfully attested to meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system may incur payment penalties, as mandated by the HITECH Act. These payment adjustments are 1-2 percent of total Medicare charges in 2015, to 2 percent in 2016 and 3-5 percent in 2017 and beyond. Medicaid rates will not be adjusted for failure to achieve meaningful use.
Physicians who began participation in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program in 2011 or 2012 must demonstrate meaningful use for a full year in 2013 to avoid payment adjustments in 2015.
Physicians who begin in 2013 must demonstrate meaningful use for a 90-day reporting period in 2013 to avoid payment adjustments in 2015. Those who begin in 2014 must demonstrate for a 90-day period in the first nine months of calendar year 2014 (by October 1, 2014) in order to avoid the payment adjustments in 2015.
Once physicians demonstrate meaningful use, they must continue to do so every year to avoid the payment penalties.
Only physicians that are eligible for the Medicare EHR Incentive Program are subject to payment adjustments.
For more information, view CMS's Payment Adjustments and Hardship Exceptions Tipsheet and How Payment Adjustments Affect Providers Tipsheet.
Contact: Michele Kelly, (213) 226-0338 or mkelly@cmanet.org.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
8. Reminder: Deadline to avoid 2014 e-prescribing penalty is June 30
If you haven't started e-prescribing yet, the time is now.
To avoid a 2 percent penalty on all Medicare Part B claims in 2014, physicians must by June 30, 2013, report e-prescribing activity using measure code G8553 with at least 10 fee schedule services between January 1 and June 30, 2013. This is true even for physicians who are already reporting through an electronic health record (EHR) system. Please note: There is no incentive payment for e-prescribing in 2014.
June 30 is also the deadline to apply for an e-prescribing exemption for 2014, if you fall into one of the following hardship exemption categories:
- The physician is unable to electronically prescribe due to local, state or federal law or regulation;
- The physician has or will prescribe fewer than 100 prescriptions for all patients during a 6-month reporting period (January 1 through June 30, 2013);
- The physician practices in a rural area without sufficient high-speed Internet access
- The eligible professional practices in an area without sufficient available pharmacies for electronic prescribing
CMA strongly recommends that physicians submit more than 10 claims during the reporting period to ensure the minimum threshold is met. Exemptions must be requested through the Quality Net Portal.
Physicians may also avoid the penalty if they have demonstrated meaningful use of a certified EHR between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, or have registered to participate in the EHR Incentive Program.
For more information, see CMA's e-prescribing guide, "Medicare Electronic Prescribing Overview: Payment Incentives and Payment Reductions."
Contact: Michele Kelly, (213) 226-0338 or mkelly@cmanet.org.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
9. CMA gives UCSF $10,000 to start medical student scholarship fund
As part of a statewide strategy to support future leaders in health care, the California Medical Association (CMA), in partnership with the San Francisco Medical Society (SFMS), has established a new scholarship that will be awarded annually to an outstanding University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) medical student with an interest in health policy.
More than 30 people attended a scholarship kickoff reception held in early June. At the reception, CMA President Paul R. Phinney, M.D., presented a $10,000 check to the Vice Chancellor Medical Affairs, UCSF Professor, School of Medicine, Sam Hawgood. The reception was hosted by Stephen Follansbee, M.D., and Richard Wolitz, M.D. In addition to CMA’s contribution, the reception netted $41,000. The goal is to raise $125,000 to endow the scholarship permanently.
Endowing the CMA Scholarship at UCSF will ensure that generations of medical students will recognize CMA and SFMS as organizations invested in their future.
A group of key UCSF-affiliated CMA/SFMS members have already endorsed and financially supported this initiative, Steve Fugaro, M.D., Gordon Fung, M.D., Man-Kit Leung, M.D., John Maa, M.D., Adam Schickedanz, M.D., Shannon Udovic-Constant, M.D., and Hugh Vincent, M.D.
Please join these ambassadors by giving what you can to support today’s UCSF students. With your help, today’s students will become the well-connected leaders who shape the health policies of the future.
Donations can be made online or by mail (checks may be made out to "UCSF Foundation" with "CMA Scholarship" in the notes section; mail checks to UCSF, Box 0248, San Francisco, CA 94143-0248.)
Contact: Betsy Cardis, (415) 476-5077 or bcardis@support.ucsf.edu.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
10. New member benefit: Union Bank discounted services for physicians, medical staff and medical students
The California Medical Association (CMA) has formed a strategic alliance with Union Bank, N.A., to provide a broad range of targeted financial solutions to meet the professional and personal needs of physicians, medical office staff and medical students.
As part of the collaboration, Union Bank will provide CMA members with discounted services ranging from business credit and treasury management solutions to business checking, merchant services and payroll processing. Other services offered include fraud reduction, business succession and estate planning, and retirement planning services. Combined, these discounts offer your practice $2,400 in potential savings.
Union Bank's relationship managers are uniquely positioned with deep industry knowledge and financial solutions specifically designed to improve the operational efficiency of today’s medical practices.
Members are invited to review the details of this collaboration and learn the many ways you, your practice and your staff can benefit. For more details, visit www.unionbank.com/cma.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
11. Reminder: Foundation leadership award nominations due June 20
The nomination deadline for the California Medical Association (CMA) Foundation's the 2013 Leadership Awards is June 21. The annual awards celebrate the efforts of individuals or organizations that make a difference in the health of Californians.
The Robert D. Sparks, M.D., Leadership Award, the Ethnic Physician Leadership Award, and the Adarsh S. Mahal, M.D., Access to Health Care and Disparities Award recognize the compassion and commitment of California's health care professionals. Nomination information and packets for each award are available at the CMA Foundation website.
The awards will be presented on Sunday, October 12, 2013, at the foundation's annual President's Reception and Awards Gala, held in conjunction with the CMA House of Delegates, October 11-13, 2013, in Anaheim.
Contact: Shelley Tirsbeck, (916) 779-6622 or stirsbeck@thecmafoundation.org.
Have something to say about this story? Post Comment
12. Upcoming webinars
6/19: What to Expect from a Medi-Cal Audit: Presented by the Department of Health Care Services, this webinar will help you understand the role of utilization oversight and claims monitoring, increase understanding of the audit process and possible outcomes, and understand common problems and methods to improve documentation.
6/26: Meaningful Use - What You Need to Know for This Year and Stage 2: Many changes are in order for the 2014 edition (Stage 2) of Meaningful Use. This informative webinar will assist you in understanding these changes and how they impact your workflows and use of electronic health records (EHR).
Contact: CMA's member help center, (800) 786-4262 or memberservice@cmanet.org.
13. Featured member benefit
Epocrates: California Medical Association members save 30 percent on all Epocrates mobile and online products. Epocrates provides point-of-care access (via mobile devices and the web) to information on drugs, diseases and diagnostics.A members-only link is required to access the discount. To access the link, visit CMA's group buying discounts page or contact CMA's member help center at (800) 786-4262 or memberservice@cmanet.org.