Community Hospitals
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

SCOTUS Review of NC Board Case 'A Very Big Deal' to Providers

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media, March 5, 2014

The American Medical Association disagreed with the appeals court and this week called the FTC action an "infringement on states' powers." The AMA filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the American Dental Association and 12 other provider professional organizations that support the dentistry board.

AMA President Ardis Dee Hoven, MD, said that the decisions of state regulatory boards "meet exemption criteria from federal antitrust challenges under the 'state action doctrine' created by the U.S. Supreme Court."

"The American Medical Association is grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to re-evaluate a case in which the federal government is interfering with the ability of state regulatory boards to protect public health and safety," Hoven said this week in prepared remarks.

"The decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission allows a federal agency with no particular knowledge of medicine or dentistry to strip authority away from experts who are charged by a state legislature to shield patients from unlawful practice."

"State regulatory boards acting to fulfill the directives of state law should be free to make decisions on public health issues without fear of second-guessing under the federal antitrust laws," she said.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "SCOTUS Review of NC Board Case 'A Very Big Deal' to Providers"


Brett Snodgrass, MD (5/19/2014 at 7:28 PM)
Should state medical board members have any accountability for their decision making. Furthermore, there is a physician shortage, and every week I see patients who are forced to go without quality care because the medical board is permitted, by law, to make the following types of decisions. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1401460#t=comments The impetus for the 1986 HCQIA was well-founded, but the current practice actually (1) ignores patient harm, (2) reprimands the reporting of patients harm, (3) relates a hostile ACGME program to be the standard of quality and objectivity, and (4) honesty is determined by academic title alone.