The state medical board adopted new conflict-of-interest rules Wednesday. Jonathan Ellis reports that members of the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners will be expected to recuse themselves from contested cases involving relatives, business connections, and doctors whose peer review committees they have supervised. Board members will also be expected to disclose other potential conflicts that may prompt the rest of the board to require recusal…
…to which I can only say, ‘What, the Board doesn’t already do that?”
Of course, if you’re going to have rules, you have to provide information that will help the public enforce them:
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 [Jonathan Ellis, “Doctor Review Board Adopts Conflict Rules,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2015.03.11].
Ah, Minnesota, once again showing South Dakota how government should work.