Jump to content

Bona Fide Issue Resolved By Mi Board Of Medicine


Recommended Posts

Yesterday the Michigan Board of Medicine may have ended the discussion regarding what a "Bona Fide" dr/pt. relationship is. They issued the following memorandum...

 

 

The Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery has

adopted the following statement to clarify the standard of care applicable to the

evaluation of an individual for the purpose of certification to use marihuana for any

medical condition:

 

Generally accepted components of a full medical evaluation to determine

suitabitity and appropriateness for recommending treatment of any kind, including

certification for medical marihuana, include:

 

- a hands-on physician patient encounter

- full assessment and recording of patient's medical history

- relevant physical examination

- review of prior records of relevant examinations, treatments and treatment

response including substance abuse history

- receipt and review of relevant diagnostic test results

- discussion of advantages, disadvantages, alternatives, potential adverse

effects and expected response to treatment

- development of plan of care with state goals of therapy

monitoring of the response to treatment and possible adverse effects

- creation and maintenance of patient records documenting the information

above

- communication with patient's primary care physician when applicable

 

The Boards expect that these medical encounters would be completed at permanent

locations that enable the patient to retum for follow-up, consultation or assistance as

needed.

 

A physician failing to meet generally accepted standards of practice when certifying a

patient to use marihuana for a medical condition may be found to be practicing below

the acceptable standard of care and therefore may be subject to disciplinary action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, it sounds like a bunch of bs actually. Hands on encounter, means that these online skype appointments would not be sufficient?? good to know the dr certifiying can "create" the records, giving the dr the ability to use the created records as reason to certify. Costing the patient even more money, when the reason most people dont go to the doctors is becuase of no insurance and cant afford to. Especially up-north where theres no jobs and people are really struggling without mooney. A Full assessment usually takes quite some time, so each appointment would be half hour at least, bringing the cost back up..

Seems another reason to hinder and to make more difficult for patients to become legal, to get the relief needed and the better quality of life everyone strives for.

Its a Natural Medicine that has NEVER HURT, KILLED, POISONED, OR CAUSED DAMAGE!!!!!

Getting it on the Ballot for legalization seems to be the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE HARASSMENT!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I saw my "Family doctor", we had a conversation about my pain. She wrote me a script for Flexeril. The last three times I saw my MM doctor, she gave me a complete physical from head to toe! She saved my best friends life. When he went in for his MM cert, his blood pressure was so high, she said he was borderline for a stroke!! Not only did she recommend MM to ease his tension, she also wrote him a script for blood pressure medication. Not all these docs are "frequent flyers!". My MM doc has done more for me in just one visit than my old family doc did for me in years!! In the last 4 years, i saw my family doc once and my MM doc three times. To me, thats "bonafide"!! I very rarely go to the doc as it is. At least with my MM doc, i know i will get a full physical at least once a year! Medcnman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday the Michigan Board of Medicine may have ended the discussion regarding what a "Bona Fide" dr/pt. relationship is. They issued the following memorandum...

 

 

The Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery has

adopted the following statement to clarify the standard of care applicable to the

evaluation of an individual for the purpose of certification to use marihuana for any

medical condition:

 

Generally accepted components of a full medical evaluation to determine

suitabitity and appropriateness for recommending treatment of any kind, including

certification for medical marihuana, include:

 

- a hands-on physician patient encounter

- full assessment and recording of patient's medical history

- relevant physical examination

- review of prior records of relevant examinations, treatments and treatment

response including substance abuse history

- receipt and review of relevant diagnostic test results

- discussion of advantages, disadvantages, alternatives, potential adverse

effects and expected response to treatment

- development of plan of care with state goals of therapy

monitoring of the response to treatment and possible adverse effects

- creation and maintenance of patient records documenting the information

above

- communication with patient's primary care physician when applicable

 

The Boards expect that these medical encounters would be completed at permanent

locations that enable the patient to retum for follow-up, consultation or assistance as

needed.

 

A physician failing to meet generally accepted standards of practice when certifying a

patient to use marihuana for a medical condition may be found to be practicing below

the acceptable standard of care and therefore may be subject to disciplinary action.

 

Do you have a link to where this info came from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it is a standard conceivably controlled by doctors and their patients, and enforced against doctors rather than their patients, and by a professional board rather than the police. Significantly better than the HB4851 approach that would have penalized patients and their caregivers for the doctor's errors and omissions.

 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it is a standard conceivably controlled by doctors and their patients, and enforced against doctors rather than their patients, and by a professional board rather than the police. Significantly better than the HB4851 approach that would have penalized patients and their caregivers for the doctor's errors and omissions.

 

ditto well said :)

 

WLP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point nobody is clarifying is why blame the patient ? A written recommendation should be the end of their establishment of compliance with legality under medical use .Plus not having one shouldn't limit other ways of establishing medicinal need was present at any point in time to avoid conviction and promote fairness to patients . Not obtaining a card which can easily happen to the sick and disabled should not in itself create a felony violation of law or laws under medical use .

Edited by Croppled1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it is a standard conceivably controlled by doctors and their patients, and enforced against doctors rather than their patients, and by a professional board rather than the police. Significantly better than the HB4851 approach that would have penalized patients and their caregivers for the doctor's errors and omissions.

 

This is great news! Physicians are perfectly capable of regulating themselves. The proposed legislation punished the patient if the physician did not meet standards which is completely unacceptable and no where else in medicine is the patient legally vulnerable for a doctor's mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A physician failing to meet generally accepted standards of practice when certifying a

patient to use marihuana for a medical condition may be found to be practicing below

the acceptable standard of care and therefore may be subject to disciplinary action.

 

So then does that mean the card is no good if the dr. fails this so called standard? Will that be the states practice on this? just some questions,.

 

How does the state determine what is a follow up ? Is a phone call a good legal standard for a follow up?

 

How will the state define a permanent

location??

 

If your dr does not do it to the tea with this result the state to say you did not have a Bona fide Patient Relationship

Edited by cristinew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time this issue be addressed by persons with knowledge. Maybe it will remove some fear from medical field prompting better communications pt's & Doc. Unfortunately it amazes me when I talk to doc's how little they know about MM even just basic info (I've fired plenty (Doc's) for ignorance in gen).

 

On another subject have you ever seen the look on a Docs face when you tell him "YOUR FIRED-YOUR SERVICES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED" priceless. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a govermental move these are Doc's saying how Docs should treat mm. If I'm wrong please explain

A physician failing to meet generally accepted standards of practice when certifying a

patient to use marihuana for a medical condition may be found to be practicing below

the acceptable standard of care and therefore may be subject to disciplinary action.

 

So then does that mean the card is no good if the dr. fails this so called standard? Will that be the states practice on this? just some questions,.

 

How does the state determine what is a follow up ? Is a phone call a good legal standard for a follow up?

A Follow up is in person just like check up (I get one at least every 6 months). I'm sorry but your putting in gray areas where logic prevails. Any Doc wants one on one, it's not like a doc is a thousands of miles away

How will the state define a permanent

location??

 

If your dr does not do it to the tea with this result the state to say you did not have a Bona fide Patient Relationship

Basic stuff with any office

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a govermental move these are Doc's saying how Docs should treat mm. If I'm wrong please explain

 

Litljon,

 

This was issued by LARA as part of a 4 page letter to docs across Michigan. Chad mentioned the letter in the beginning of this thread:

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/37362-bona-fide-issue-resolved-by-mi-board-of-medicine/page__view__findpost__p__358637

 

The actual document was written by the Michigan Board of Medicine back in the summer. See the minutes of the Michigan Board of Medicine, pg 4:

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/ ... 5075_7.pdf

 

With regards to adding new approved conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions I think you will see LARA acting on that issue in the next few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semi caregiver, you can re link the document, or give me a pm with the link?

 

Timmah,

 

Sorry, but I do not have a copy of the document or a link to it, but I did see it. It was signed by Rae Ramsdell, head of the MMMP at LARA and on their stationary. Per Chad's post it is suppose to be up on LARA's website soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is a workable fix, it in no way a bona fide arrangement. It is, instead, a collection of best practices that are compulsory. Bona fide relationships are grounded in good faith or good will, which is the translation from the latin, from which duty emerges, and is realized as a categorical moral imperative. Good will is always and everywhere good. More to the point, government cannot legislate true moral behavior, and finds it more convenient to use coercive measures.

 

Bona fide is a term used every day in legal documents. If an innocent bona fide party is harmed by another party who they have entered into a bona fide agreement with, the delinquent party is guilty of fraud and can be charged, either criminally, civilly, or both, depending on the circumstance.

 

Due diligence is required by all parties. As patients we are required, as are physicians, to understand at least the rudiments of the law. If we fail in that we are not performing our duty, and can be required to answer in court. Please take the necessary precautions to adequately establish your qualifying condition with any physician with whom you enter a relationship.

 

The appeal to this is that it takes the onus off patients, who were likely to be caught up in the proposed legislation, and still may be. Only when the buffoons in Lasing finally back down will we have the protection the law, as passed, grants us.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...