The level of mistrust should be of great concern to doctors and nurses. Until the insurance companies reimburse at a reasonable rate, doctors will continue to place profit above patient care. It's not just the GI physicians, it's the Medical Mafia -those doctors who lied under oath and took kickbacks just to make more money. Doctors and nurses are just a reflection of what is going on in our society today - greed overtakes compassion, money speaks louder than ethical behavior, and everyone is out to make a buck...all of us. "No good deed goes unpunished" is now the battle cry and we are all to blame.

Where have Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie and Holly Sweetin been living? Health care is a business, pure and simple. The doctors need to make a living just as the rest of us. This isn't the 1950s and doctors are no longer viewed as mythical creatures with God-like behavior. Despite any other motivation, they certainly want to make money, as do the rest of us. Of course we're cynical...a lot of us don't have health insurance and the insurance that we have isn't very good. I don't believe that the sentiment that health care providers value profit over patients is due to the anger over the hepatitis-C outbreak. When your doctor limits your questions to 3 per visit or has her hand on the door while you are talking, trust goes out the window and it is obvious that the dollar is more important than the patient. The health care system is sick and has been for a very long time.

Did you see where this article originated? SF Bay Area. Click on the link at the top where it says via Bay Area and the story is a little more detailed, nothing new, just more detailed. I just find it interesting it came from there from the Associated Press. I'd like to know how Gibbons is going to decide who the temporary members are since he can't seem to make a decision at all.

Posting malpractice info on a website does not tell the whole story. Read this from the California Business and Professions Code: "The Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, and the California Board of Podiatric Medicine shall include the following statement when disclosing information concerning a settlement:
"Some studies have shown that there is no significant correlation between malpractice history and a doctor's competence.To make the best health care decisions, you should view this information in perspective. You could miss an opportunity for high-quality care by selecting a doctor based solely on malpractice history.
When considering malpractice data, please keep in mind: Malpractice histories tend to vary by specialty. Some specialties are more likely than others to be the subject of litigation. The incident causing the malpractice claim may have happened years before a payment is finally made. Sometimes, it takes a long time for a malpractice lawsuit to settle. Some doctors work primarily with high-risk patients. These doctors may have malpractice settlement histories that are higher than average because they specialize in cases or patients who are at very high risk for problems. Settlement of a claim may occur for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily reflect negatively on the professional competence or conduct of the doctor. A payment in settlement of a medical malpractice action or claim should not be construed as creating a presumption that medical malpractice has occurred. You may wish to discuss information in this report and the general issue of malpractice with your doctor."
This sounds reasonable to me. The number of malpractice cases filed in Clark County alone during 2007 was 824. I believe we have less than 5,000 docs in the state. The number of malpractice cases filed in the entire state of California for fiscal year 2006-07 was 873 out of a total of 124,000 physicians who have California licenses and who are required to report. Something is rotten in Nevada and it's not fair to blame only the docs, the medical board, the health division, or the government.

If susan read the Nevada Revised Statutes and knew anything about medicine, she would know that to summarily suspend a physician would require findings that continued practice would endanger the health, safety, and welfare of his patients. Contrary to what she may believe, summary suspension is not an action that is used freely throughout the country as it requires evidence of immediate danger and is therefore, not legally supported in most cases. These practices were evidently going on for years and while I am outraged at them, the centers are no longer in operation and the board would find it difficult legally to summarily suspend. I also would like them to take some action and I agree the board members should go, but like it or not, we are still bound by laws and I'm sure that susan would want her due process rights protected. Investigate on an expedited basis and then take whatever discipinary action is required. I guess the major question would be - who is going to do the investigating?