Monopoly--Allopathic Archives

Health Freedom

[ Monopoly--Allopathic Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

Health Freedom

Posted by Sapphire [735.9683] on May 31, 2011 at 11:10:21:

Hi, Dr Stoll,

I know you and Dr. William Rea go way back, so I thought you'd find this interesting. I posted previously about the charges against him, but this is a letter from Dr. Rea himself.

Sapphire



Follow Ups:



Re: Health Freedom -- ARCHIVE IN MONOPOLY

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.9640] on May 31, 2011 at 12:32:37:

In Reply to: Health Freedom posted by Sapphire [735.9683] on May 31, 2011 at 11:10:21:

Thanks, Sapphire!

Sorry to say but this sounds exactly like what happened to me 20 Years ago. If the public does not stand behind these docs the insurance/AMA guys will keep on winning.

Namaste`

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Health Freedom

Posted by Sapphire [735.9683] on May 31, 2011 at 18:12:55:

In Reply to: Health Freedom posted by Sapphire [735.9683] on May 31, 2011 at 11:10:21:

You're welcome, Dr. Stoll.

Here's the full text for the archives. :0)

Namaste'

Sapphire

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Environmental Health Center – Dallas
WIlliam J. Rea, M.D.
FA.C.S., F.AA.E.M.,
FA.C.N., FA.C.P.M.,
FA.CA., F.R.S.M.
Board Certified in
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Abdominal and General Surgery
Environmental Medicine

8345 Walnut Hill Lane – Suite 220, Dallas,Texas75231 · Telephone:(214)368-4132- Facsimile: (214) 691-8432
Website: www.ehcd.com E-mail: inform@ehcd.com

September 18, 2007
Dear Patients:
This letter is being sent to you so that we may provide information about a
potential serious potential threat to your choice of medical care. To put it bluntly,
there is currently an organized nation-wide effort to destroy the specialty of
Environmental Medicine and to eliminate from practice physicians who diagnose
and treat patients suffering from chemical sensitivities.
Since October of 2005 the Texas Medical Board has been investigating me on
charges of providing substandard care and “endangering public health.” An
anonymous third party complaint was made to the board against me, citing five
specific patients as being mistreated. You may ask “What is an anonymous third
party complaint?” This type of complaint is made to the board without the
knowled2:e or consent of the patient. The complaint against me was almost
certainly made by United Health Care/Oxford. All five patients cited in the
complaint had no knowledge that they or their information was being used in this
way. Further, none of the patients are alleging mistreatment or malpractice against
me and all five are still under my care. Additionally, these patients have all
written to the Texas Medical Board and informed them that they are not part of
this complaint and they are not making any allegations against me of any kind.
Two of the patients have stated that I saved their lives.
The Texas Medical Board has dismissed the protests of these patients and
continues to pursue charges against me. Further, the board refuses to officially
reveal who made the complaint, what I am alleged to have done, or what evidence
was presented against me. They continually maintain that this information is
protected and does not have to be revealed.
However, we are almost certain that United Health Care/Oxford is behind the
complaint. All five patients were from Manhattan (New York City), New York
and all had the same insurance company – United Health Care/Oxford. As you
know, our clinic does not take insurance, so all patients file claims directly with
their respective insurance companies. We therefore do not have any direct
connection with this insurance company. Evidence showing these facts was
supplied to the Texas Medical Board, but was apparently disregarded as they have
decided to pursue the charges despite the evidence.
The board has conducted an anonymous so-called peer review of the five patient’s
medical records and the treatment they received, again without the permission of
these patients. A peer review of a physician’s action can be undertaken for a
variety of reasons but there is always one common factor in the process.
September 18, 2007
Page Two
That common factor is that the reviewer is required to be both knowledgeable about and a
practitioner of the specialty that is being reviewed. Thus, the reviewer is a “peer” of the
physician being reviewed.
In my case the Texas Medical Board chose a reviewer who does not specialize in Environmental
Medicine, and who is in fact an allergist. This reviewer, who was anonymous, gave a negative
review of the treatment of the five patients, despite the fact that all have improved, several of
them substantially so, while under my care. I had 17 actual peers, physicians who practice
Environmental Medicine, review all five of these cases as well. To a person these 17 reviewers
found that my treatment of these patients was not only adequate, but that it met or exceeded the
standard of care for treatment in our specialty. Further, the reviewers also noted that the state
board reviewer was UNINFORMED about the specialty of Environmental Medicine, clearly did
not understand the complex nature of the diagnosis and treatment of patients who suffer from
chemical sensitivities, grossly misunderstood many of the facts in the medical records, was
antagonistic towards and biased against the specialty of Environmental Medicine, and was
clearly unqualified to conduct such a review due to lack of experience, knowledge, and
expressed biases. The board has chosen to dismiss the review done by 17 actual peers and has
chosen to support the conclusion of their one unqualified reviewer.
Based on secret evidence provided by an anonymous accuser and supported by and anonymous
reviewer the board has recommended that my license to practice medicine be placed in jeopardy.
Currently, the Texas Medical Board is one of the most difficult for physicians to deal with in the
entire country. It is particularly noted for not treating physicians fairly and denying their basic
constitutional rights. Pleased be assured that I still have my license, that I am fighting the
charges, that the Environmental Health Center is still open, and we are still seeing patients and
plan to continue doing so.
Unfortunately, my case is not unique. Recently across the United States there has been an
organized attempt to deprive citizens of their choice in individual health care by attempting to
have the licenses of doctors who are deemed to practice “alternative” medicine revoked. This
campaign has been going on for at least 10 years now and is being led primarily by health
insurance companies. These efforts are also being supported by a small group of individuals (and
other groups) working for or associated with the National Council Against Health Fraud in
Allentown, Pennsylvania.
The typical pattern in these attacks is to single out physicians they do not like and file
anonymous complaints against them with different state medical boards. For example, over the
past 10 years the number of physicians who are willing to diagnose and treat Lyme Disease has
dropped sharply, while cases of Lyme disease have skyrocketed. This is because several health
insurance companies have systematically targeted the doctors who specialized in treating that
illness. Many of these physicians have had complaints made against them in exactly the same
manner that they have been made against me. These same types of complaints have been made
– —-
September 18, 2007
Page Three
against doctors who treat patients for chemical sensitivities, mold exposure, for Gulf War
Syndrome, and now possibly against physicians who are treating patients who were injured in
the 9/11 tragedy.
You may ask why this campaign is taking place. It appears that quite simply the health insurance
companies want to be the sole arbiter of what types of treatments are available to patients, and
thus what they will be required to pay. They clearly do not want new diagnoses and treatments
established because they will then have to pay for these. Finally, many of us who have been
turned in to state medical boards do not take insurance assignment. We do this so that we can
provide treatment to our patients without insurance company interference. In recent years the
health insurance carriers have tried to automate their claims processing procedures. When claims
are denied, they then have to be handled by a human and this costs money. When physicians do
not accept insurance assignment, the claims submitted by their patients often have a higher
denial rate. This results in higher processing costs for the insurance companies. If these carriers
can eliminate the independent physicians with higher denial rates they can potentially save a lot
of money. Certain state medical boards appear to agree with this strategy and cooperate in the
process.
Of course, these attempts are also being made in order to try and standardize treatments and
make all patients fit into one “box.” Americans need more choices in health care, not fewer. We
hope you, as an informed citizen, want to be part of an effort to help preserve freedom of choice
in health care. Insurance carriers and a small group of “Quack busters” should not be allowed to
decide what type of health care is available in this country.
It is unconscionable that the Texas Medical Board would want to limit freedom of choice in
health care, and allow insurance carriers to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Please
join our effort for freedom of choice in health care and write your protest to members of the
Texas Legislature. You can also copy your protest to members of the Texas Medical Board. If
you do not know who your representatives are, go to the following website to find out:
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
If you are out of state, you can contact Texas State Senator Jane Nelson and Representative Fred
Brown, both of whom have taken an interest in recent activities of the Texas Medical Board. You
can also send letters of protest to the Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, Donald
Patrick, M.D., J.D., bye-mail, phone, or fax. Please petition the elected officials to:
1. Support the dismissal of the anonymous complaint made against Dr. Rea, or at
the very least the revelation of who made the complaint and what evidence was
presented against him.
– —-
September 18, 2007
Page Four
2. Prohibit the Texas Medical Board from conducting anonymous peer reviews by
unqualified reviewers, or using reviewers with a bias or conflict of interest.
3. Prohibit the Texas Medical Board from accepting and pursuing complaints in
such a way that they deprive physicians of their constitutional rights and their
ability to defend themselves.
4. Strongly oppose the anonymity given to billion dollar insurance compames
when making state board complaints against physicians.
5. Urge the Texas Legislature to hold hearings on the Texas Medical Board and
their seeming cooperation with health insurance companies’ attempts to delicense
physicians in specialties that they do not like and the board’s denial of
due process to accused physicians in direct contradiction to the due process that
the board claims that it provides.
Thank you very much for your help. Together, we can stop the Texas Medical Board and other
state medical boards from unfairly targeting physicians that outside interests do not like. We can
also expose the despicable tactics of the insurance companies in their efforts to control all
aspects of healthcare.
r!!::J~ President
Environmental Health Center-Dallas
Texas Leeislators:
Texas Senator Jane Nelson
Chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee
P. O. Box 12068
Austin, TX 78711
512/463-0112
j ane.nelson@senate.state.tx.us
– – — -
September 18,2007
Page Five
Representative Fred Brown
Room CAP GWA
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768
(512)463-0698
(512) 463-5109 Fax
Members of the Texas Medical Board:
Correspondence to the Board Members can be sent to:
Texas Medical Board
P. O. Box 2018
Austin, Texas 78768
TEL: (512) 305-7030
FAX: (512) 305-7051
Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D. (Executive Director)
Lawrence LaZelle Anderson, M.D. (Dermatology)
Tyler
Michael Arambula, M.D. (Psychiatry)
San Antonio
Julie Attebury (Public Member)
Amarillo
Jose M. Benavides, M.D. (Internal Medicine)
San Antonio
Patricia S. Blackwell (Public Member)
Midland
Melina S. Fredricks (Public Member)
Conroe
Manual G. Guajardo, M.D. (Obstetrics/Gynecology)
Brownsville
– – — – - – - — – - — —
September 18, 2007
Page Six
Roberta M. Kalafut, D.O. (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation)
Current board President
Abilene
Amanullah Khan, M.D. (Oncology)
Dallas
Melina McMichael, M.D. (Internal Medicine)
Austin
Margaret C. McNeese, M.D. (Pediatrics)
Houston
Charles E. Oswalt, III,M.D. (Trauma Surgeon)
Waco
Larry Price, D.O. (Cardiovascular Diseases)
Current Board Vice President
Temple
Annette P. Raggette (Public Member)
Austin
Paulette B. Southard (Public Member)
Alice
Timothy J. Turner (Public Member)
Current Secretary-Treasurer
Houston
Timothy Webb (Public Member)
Houston
Irvin E. Zeitler, Jr., D.O. (Family Practice)
San Angelo





Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Health Freedom--Archive.

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.9640] on May 31, 2011 at 18:21:58:

In Reply to: Re: Health Freedom posted by Sapphire [735.9683] on May 31, 2011 at 18:12:55:

Thanks.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



[ Monopoly--Allopathic Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!