Page 18 - OctSam2019

CORPORATE
MEDICINE

continued from page 17
Choices and Radiation Oncology. later the practice of medicine faces the
In addition, legislation such as same forces of creative destruction as
the Medicare and CHIP Reau- other professions. It is not only physicians
thorization Act of 2015 and its facing changes regarding corporate in-
implementation through the volvement in their profession. The State
Quality Payment Program in cer- bar of California recently requested com-
tain instances has increased prac- ment on proposals that would permit non-
tice costs and reporting lawyers to hold a financial interest in a law
requirements, creating additional firm. However, even with the ever rapid
incentives for physicians to align changes in the way medicine is reimbursed
with larger systems.” and recent recalibrations to CPOM restric-
cremental steps. We are unafraid of dis-
tions, the overarching principle remains
rupting existing arrangements simply be- Conclusion firmly planted in the law: corporate deci-
cause they’re backed by powerful special
In a 1934 JAMA article, the AMA sion-making must not interfere with the in-
interests.
warned that “the worst possible type of dependent medical judgment of physicians.
“despite earlier criticism of mandatory
new methods in medical practice is in the
models implemented by the previous ad-
incorporation by business men of organi- Jeff Wurzburg is a Counsel in the San An-
ministration, in July the Trump administra-
zations to engage in the practice of medi- tonio office of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.
tion proposed two mandatory models that
cine, employing physicians on salaries and Previously he served in the United States Depart-
would require certain providers to partici-
exploiting the services of these physicians ment of Health and Human Services Office of
pate: End-Stage Renal disease Treatment
unethically to the public.” Eighty-five years the General Counsel in Washington D.C.

18 San Antonio Medicine • October 2019