Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA

Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA

Recent court rulings in Kansas and Florida have reached different conclusions as to whether physicians who provide expert medical testimony in court are engaged in the practice of medicine. In Mississippi the issue is apparently moot, as the State Board of Medical Licensure recently adopted standards to regulate physicians who testify as expert witnesses.

My dictionary defines "practice" as repetitious behavior to acquire or polish a skill. As applied to medicine, it means the business of a physician or group of physicians. It is absurd to think that physicians who provide expert testimony in a courtroom are practicing medicine. A former mentor of mine remarked it does "violence" to the practice of medicine to think this way.

It is also absurd to believe that physicians who conduct utilization reviews within the confines of HMOs are engaged in practice, although the courts are divided on this issue as well. Such reasoning can only be explained in light of attempts by the medical profession to co-opt regulatory boards into punishing physicians who are openly critical of other physicians.

Rather than police expert physicians, medical boards should invest in resources to investigate clinically deficient physicians.

The issue of whether physicians may freely give medical opinions is also now being contested in the pharmaceutical industry, where at least two physicians are facing criminal prosecution for speaking "off-label." The rules seem clearer in the pharmaceutical industry. Discussing unapproved uses of products is generally acceptable in CME programs for the purpose of advancing science.

Even in promotional programs sponsored by drug companies, off-label discussions are permitted so long as the physician narrows his or her remarks to unsolicited questions posed by the audience.

Speakers should clearly advise the audience that the answer is outside the scope of approved labeling and that they are speaking from independent medical judgment. The danger zone is entered when physicians make false statements about a drug's unapproved use in order to get other physicians to buy it.

Bottom line

Physicians cannot rely on courts, drug companies, or HMOs to protect their freedom of speech. Their experience and knowledge form the foundation of all medical opinion.

Physicians need to be familiar with the scientific literature comprising the evidence base of medical practice and, when speaking on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, they also need to be familiar with the limitations of the product and results of relevant clinical trials.

Anything less invites scrutiny and possible retaliation by other physicians or prosecution by the authorities.

Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA, is senior director of clinical research for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in Wilmington, Del. He is editor of MD/MBA: Physicians on the New Frontier of Medical Management (American College of Physician Executives, 1998). He can be reached by phone at 302/885-4542 or by e-mail at arthur.lazarus@astrazeneca.com. His opinions are his own, not necessarily those of AstraZeneca or Managed Care.

Managed Care welcomes proposals for contributions to this column. Mail them to:

Viewpoint Editor
Managed Care Magazine
780 Township Line Road
Yardley, PA 19067

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.