Doctor review board adopts conflict rules

Members of a board that can decide whether physicians practice medicine in South Dakota would be required to recuse themselves in cases involving relatives or financial interests under a new conflict-of-interest rule adopted Wednesday.

Members of the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners, who are mostly physicians, also would be barred from involvement in cases when they supervise a peer review committee of a doctor who is involved in a contested case or disciplinary proceeding before the board. Board members also would be required to recuse themselves when their spouses have business relationships with parties in contested cases before the board.

A second rule also adopted Wednesday is potentially more far reaching: It requires board members to disclose potential conflicts, whether personal or financial, that a "reasonable person would believe might result in bias or prejudgment." Under these scenarios, the board could vote to remove a member from a hearing in which there's a potential conflict.

Both rules go to the Legislature's Rules Review Committee for final adoption.

Their passage by the board comes amid heightened scrutiny about potential conflicts of interest. The board can vote to revoke a doctor's license and take other actions that are reported to a national databank, which can jeopardize a physician's career.

Dr. Mary Carpenter, for example, has been criticized for serving on South Dakota's licensing board while also serving on the board of directors of an insurance holding company that includes a medical malpractice insurer that is a dominant insurer in the state's medical community.

Carpenter is currently president of the board. Members are appointed by the governor.

Dr. Lars Aanning, a retired surgeon from Yankton, testified that even with the new rules, it's difficult for members of the public or medical community to identify potential conflicts because there is no biographical information about the nine members on the board's website. In contrast, Aanning pointed out, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice contains detailed biographical information about board members. That includes where they received their educations and where they've practiced medicine.

"I think an effort to be more transparent and more physician-friendly, I think this board should similarly do that," Aanning said.

Following the hearing, Deb Bowman, one of two nondoctors on the board, agreed with Aanning's point.

"We should have no problem doing that," Bowman said.