Report says CURES database provisions in MICRA ballot measure cannot be implemented March 17, 2014 General CURES, MICRA, Professional Liability 0 Today, the Patients, Providers and Healthcare Insurers to Protect Access & Contain Health Costs campaign released a report that raises serious doubts about whether a key provision of the trial lawyers' proposed anti-MICRA ballot measure can be feasibly implemented. Even worse, according to the report, the ballot measure would put physicians and pharmacists in the impossible position of choosing between denying or delaying needed prescription medication to legitimately suffering patients and violating the law. In addition to more than quadrupling MICRA's cap on non-economic damages, the trial attorneys' proposed initiative would require licensed health care practitioners and pharmacists to consult California’s Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (known as CURES) database prior to prescribing or dispensing Schedule II or Schedule III controlled substances to patients. The non-partisan report found that although this system has the potential to allow prescribing health care providers to check on the relevant prescription drug histories of their patients as required by the proposed initiative, in practice it lacks important functionality needed to allow doctors and other prescribing health care providers to comply. According to the report, the CURES database, without a major change to its currently proposed timeline for upgrades and improvements, would be unable to accommodate the more than 200,000 new users that would need to be added in order for the system to be universally utilized. According to the authors of the report, Tim Gage, former Finance Director for the State of California, and Len Finocchio, former Associate Director for California’s Department of Health Care Services, the provision “would almost certainly result in a situation in which prescribing health providers would be legally required to use a database that was in practice not available.” The measure’s proponents, who have already admitted that the non-MICRA provisions were “sweeteners” written by focus groups, not health professionals, are currently circulating their measure for signatures. “This report underscores what we already know – that the non-MICRA provisions of this measure were hastily written in focus groups without providing language to actually make it work. The drafting errors make it impossible to practically implement,” says Jim DeBoo, campaign manager for Patients, Providers and Healthcare Insurers to Protect Access & Contain Health Costs, the political committee organized to oppose the ballot measure. “In the meantime,” said DeBoo, “this measure would increase costs, reduce access and cause statewide chaos as physicians and pharmacists wrestle with figuring out how to provide needed medicines to patients without violating a new, poorly-drafted law.” Today, the Patients, Providers and Healthcare Insurers to Protect Access & Contain Health Costs campaign released a report that raises serious doubts about whether a key provision of the trial lawyers' proposed anti-MICRA ballot measure can be feasibly implemented. Even worse, according to the report, the ballot measure would put physicians and pharmacists in the impossible position of choosing between denying or delaying needed prescription medication to legitimately suffering patients and violating the law. In addition to more than quadrupling MICRA's cap on non-economic damages, the trial attorneys' proposed initiative would require licensed health care practitioners and pharmacists to consult California’s Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (known as CURES) database prior to prescribing or dispensing Schedule II or Schedule III controlled substances to patients. The non-partisan report found that although this system has the potential to allow prescribing health care providers to check on the relevant prescription drug histories of their patients as required by the proposed initiative, in practice it lacks important functionality needed to allow doctors and other prescribing health care providers to comply. According to the report, the CURES database, without a major change to its currently proposed timeline for upgrades and improvements, would be unable to accommodate the more than 200,000 new users that would need to be added in order for the system to be universally utilized. According to the authors of the report, Tim Gage, former Finance Director for the State of California, and Len Finocchio, former Associate Director for California’s Department of Health Care Services, the provision “would almost certainly result in a situation in which prescribing health providers would be legally required to use a database that was in practice not available.” The measure’s proponents, who have already admitted that the non-MICRA provisions were “sweeteners” written by focus groups, not health professionals, are currently circulating their measure for signatures. “This report underscores what we already know – that the non-MICRA provisions of this measure were hastily written in focus groups without providing language to actually make it work. The drafting errors make it impossible to practically implement,” says Jim DeBoo, campaign manager for Patients, Providers and Healthcare Insurers to Protect Access & Contain Health Costs, the political committee organized to oppose the ballot measure. “In the meantime,” said DeBoo, “this measure would increase costs, reduce access and cause statewide chaos as physicians and pharmacists wrestle with figuring out how to provide needed medicines to patients without violating a new, poorly-drafted law.” Comments are closed.
