Dr. Alwin Lewis was investigated by the Medical Board of California because of an odd diet he had apparently advised patients to undertake. (The “five bite” diet… don’t eat breakfast, then eat five bites of food for the rest of the day. I would have demanded an investigation, too.) During the course of the investigation, the Medical Board uncovered inappropriate prescription patterns in California’s PDMP (the CURES database). The Medical Board found that he had kept poor medical records and had over-prescribed medications to two patients. He was placed on three years’ probation.
And that’s when all heck broke loose…
Dr. Lewis took the case to court, arguing that the Board had gone too far in using information from the PDMP against him. There’s a lot of confusion here, even by California standards. Here are some key points to keep in mind:
First, the ACLU, civil rights attorneys, the California Medical Association (CMA), and several other groups are making a lot of noise about this case. All of them are trying to push this issue far beyond the scope of the challenge that is actually being raised by the Dr. Lewis. If Lewis prevails, the result will be a revision of the Medical Board’s investigation/disciplinary process, not an invalidation of the CURES statute.
Second, this case is not about protecting patients’ privacy; it’s about protecting patients’ privacy when doing so protects the doctor from a Board investigation. Lewis has made it clear that this is not a facial challenge to the CURES statute; in fact, he concedes that in most instances, such as in an administrative audit of a pharmacist (but not a physician), pulling a patient’s prescription info is constitutional. His position is that when a CURES audit is performed “for the express purpose of investigating physician practices,” the auditor should not be able to access patient records without a subpoena, warrant, or good cause.
Third, it’s also about protecting the doctor’s right to privacy. Lewis is arguing that he has a direct, personal, right to privacy in regards to his prescribing patterns, and that the Board violated that right when they performed the CURES audit of his prescribing history without an administrative subpoena. While that may sound like a terrible argument, this is California, and so there is actually appellate case law that supports him on that point. This is actually a central theme in his petition. He argues that when a pharmacy auditor looks at the medications dispensed to a patient by that pharmacist, neither the rights of the pharmacist nor the rights of the patient are violated; when a physician auditor views the medications prescribed to a patient by that physician, both the rights of the patient and the rights of the prescriber are violated. Makes complete sense, right?
The Board’s conduct – however excessive – was aimed at protecting patients. The PDMP rules are aimed at protecting patients. The only real danger to the patients’ interests came from the guy that is now trying to pose as their protector in order to get out of a disciplinary action.
This case, regardless of what you might read elsewhere, shouldn't have a significant impact on PDMP use in California or any other state.
Follow us on Twitter @PRIUM1
Follow us on Twitter @PRIUM1