Ask the expert: Should no- and low-volume providers be allowed to vote on medical staff matters?
Medical Staff Leader Connection, August 5, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
The associate category is a non-voting category. It usually consists of new appointees to the medical staff who may not vote for one year while they “learn the system” at their new hospital. Some medical staffs feel that if you are a medical staff member you should be allowed to vote and therefore do not have this category at all.
In the case of low-volume and no-volume physicians, the decision on whether these practitioners should have a vote is a cultural decision of the medical staff. There is good rationale for either decision.
- In support of the decision that low-volume and no-volume practitioners should not have a vote:
- Some medical staffs feel that they do not have a good understanding of the dynamics of the inpatient environment and should not be making decisions on how this works
- Some feel that low-volume and no-volume practitioners are not subject to the same policies that they vote for and therefore have a skewed perspective on the burden on the practitioner that some of these decisions may make
- In support of the decision that low-volume and no-volume practitioners should have a vote:
- Some feel that continued referrals from these practitioners are vital to the health of the hospital and support other practitioners that do the inpatient work
- Some feel that if a vote is not given to these individuals, they may feel disrespected and take their referrals to a competing organization
- Some feel that senior medical staff members who wish to provide outpatient care as they approach retirement have played vital roles in medical staff leadership and may wish to continue to do so
The voting issue is a cultural and strategic decision. These low-volume and no-volume physicians could be placed in the active category with a vote or in the associate category without a vote, whichever is more appropriate to the medical staff members concerned.
This week’s ask the expert was provided by Mary Hoppa, MD, MBA, CMSL, senior consultant with The Greeley Company, a division of HCPro, Inc. in Marblehead, MA
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Searched
