Showing posts with label Dr. Michael W. Davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Michael W. Davis. Show all posts

Monday, December 09, 2013

Tip of the hat to Dr. John Armstrong and state investigator Michael Knezevich

 

 

Dr. John Armstrong and Michael Knezevich-
A Story of Two American Patriots

by: Michael W. Davis, DDS

Dr. John H. Armstrong led a highly distinguished and venerated career as a physician, in the US Army. His active duty responsibilities included orthopedic surgery, supervision of a specialized trauma unit, as well as education for our next generation of physicians. He assumed responsibility not only for active duty personnel injured in the line of combat duty, but also their families at times. As a command medical officer, he was there for the well being of our nation’s soldiers.

Dr. Armstrong fully comprehends working with a team, and within chain-of-command, to obtain the desired objective. He will get results. He will support his command subordinates, in the field. As such, he generates team morale. He serves as both a leader by example, and importantly as a teacher, mentor and coach, to his subordinates.

This is the remarkable individual, Florida Governor Rick Scott appointed to position of Florida State Surgeon General, in 2012.

(for more please read: http://www.floridahealth.gov/public-health-in-your-life/about-the-department/ssg/index.html)

Michael Knezevich is a retired police officer veteran, of over twenty years. His skin is calloused from years, of dealing with the criminal element in our society. It’s in his blood to “protect and serve”, the public welfare. Today, Mr. Knezevich works at a salary of approximately, $36,000 per anum, as a malpractice investigator for Florida’s Department of Health and Human Services. He investigates allegations of Medicaid and Medicare fraud, for basically a peanut’s income. Mr. Knezevich is only a few paychecks himself distanced, from the disadvantaged, who depend on government assistance. He’s often up against highly skilled white-collar criminals and medical professional criminals, who cheat the taxpayer and harm the most vulnerable in our society. Mr. Knezevich is definitely fighting the good fight, “in the trenches”.

The bipartisan US Senate report of July 2013, on corporate dentistry offered firm evidence of dental Medicaid fraud, as a well-established industry and business model, within the dental profession. Further troubling evidence has been provided by reports of Bloomberg Business News, PBS Frontline, investigative reporters Byron Harris and Roberta Baskin, Debbie Hagan’s “Dentist The Menace” online blog, etc. At the federal level, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services has been continually admonished for “wrist slaps” on violators, which enable and perpetuate unlawful activities. Individual state auditors and regulators fare no better, in their enabling of Medicaid and Medicare abusers and fraudsters.

Dr. Thomas Floyd recently embarrassed Florida. He was an entrenched icon of organized dentistry, both in Florida and nationally. Dr. Floyd was allegedly involved in numerous acts of physical abuse of disadvantaged Medicaid children, going back for over a decade. Florida’s “good old boy” system gave him pass after pass. Allegations came and went, as did witnesses, but it was business as usual for Dr. Floyd. Florida’s regulatory authorities were in perpetual hiding, under their collective desks. Eventually, even this disturbing boil came to a head and popped. Dr. Floyd has since surrendered his dental license, and agreed to never again practice dentistry. However, this alleged Medicaid violator’s abuses were so egregious, this amounts to “a day late and a dollar short”, when it comes to protection of the public interest.

Next came the alleged actions against Dr. Michael Tarver, a pediatric dentist and Medicaid provider. His actions of amending patient records, after knowledge of those records being under Florida State investigation, have been confirmed. He added entries into patient records, but neglected to openly signify the amendments were at a later date, and not the day of patient care. This represents a potentially serious misrepresentation, which any first-year medical or dental student would be sanctioned for. In my personal work as an expert dental witness, this act alone usually changes the questions asked. It’s no longer a question of malpractice or not, but a question of fraud, and how severe the settlement will become against the violator.

Supporters of Dr. Tarver nitpick over a parent’s complaint of lack of informed consent for general anesthesia. In actuality, medicated conscience sedation was employed for the minor patient. Either way, medications were delivered to a child, which have known risks, without the consent of the parent, and with their expressed disapproval. Only a trained medical or dental expert is held to the standard of care, of understanding different levels of sedation and their associated risks. An untrained person can’t be held to medical/dental standard of care, but the doctor certainly is.

Dr. Tarver allegedly resuscitated a child patient, after they stopped breathing during dental treatment. The parent was allegedly never informed of this adverse clinical outcome, which violates standard of care, as well as Florida statutes relating to practice of dentistry. Parents were routinely denied access to accompany their children during dental care by Dr. Tarver, so they often had no direct knowledge of exactly how their children were being cared for. Although Dr. Tarver claimed in a press report, that the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) condones his actions of denying parent’s access to their children during dental procedures, the opposite is the truth. The AAPD Guidelines state that most children behave better (not worse) with their parent’s presence. One is left to wonder, what Dr. Tarver may be hiding?

Monday, May 06, 2013

Interview of American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry President, Dr. Joel Berg by Dr. Michael W. Davis

Bios of Dr. Joel Berg and Dr. Michael Davis.

Dr. Joel BergDr. Joel Berg is current president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and named dean of the University of Washington’s School of Dentistry in 2012. He was previously an executive at Philips Oral Healthcare and 3M’s ESPE Dental. Dr. Berg is an inventor and has authored numerous articles and manuscripts. He is also co-editor of the textbook on early childhood oral health. His latest invention is the Pediatric Bur Block for DVI.

He is a fellow of the American College of Dentists and International College of Dentists, as well as a board director of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry. In 2011, he was named the Washington Dental Service Foundation Distinguished Professor for Dentistry.

Dr. Michael DavisDr. Michael W. Davis has achieved national recognition as an expert dental lecturer and author. His current private practice, SMILES OF SANTA FE, has successfully helped hundreds of patients achieve and maintain spectacular smiles and optimal oral health since 2003.  Dr. Davis holds membership in the Academy of General Dentistry, the American Dental Association, and the New Mexico Dental Association. His presentations include speaking for the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, Association of Cosmetic Practices, Cruise and Learn Alaska Seminar, and the International AACD in San Antonio. As an author, Dr. Davis' articles have appeared in many respected publications, including Dental Economics, Dentistry Today, Journal of Cosmetic Dentistry, and Journal of the American Dental Association. He also serves on the editorial review board for the Journal of Cosmetic Dentistry.

Interview of American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry President, Dr. Joel Berg

Dr. Davis: We continue to see a disturbing degree of misrepresentations in dental marketing and advertising, in which general dentists attempt to represent themselves as specialists. Sometimes, this is seen with individual practitioners, and sometimes we see these misrepresentations from larger interstate dental providers. We can’t expect the public to have our degree of sophistication and professional knowledge, to read fact from fiction. How can the public best be protected from these unprofessional charlatans?

Dr. Berg: A big part of the answer is for state dental boards to enforce the laws and regulations that are currently on the books concerning the criteria for specialty advertising (namely, that a dentist cannot state or imply specialization absent appropriate training in one of the nine recognized dental specialties). The AAPD provides guidance on advertising to our affiliate (general dentist) members and we have also shared this with state dental boards. We applaud those general dentists who take care of children and do so in accordance with AAPD’s clinical guidelines. For purposes of advertising, the AAPD believes the following terms are acceptable by a general dentist: Family Dentistry, General Dentistry for Children or General Dentistry for Children and Families. However, the AAPD believes the following phrases are confusing to the public and contrary to the membership obligations of the Affiliate category: Child Dentistry, Children’s Dentistry, Dentistry for Children, Dentistry for Kids or Pediatric Dentistry. Affiliate members using such terms are subject to disciplinary action by the AAPD. We are aware that some corporate chains have names that are misleading, and we believe that state dental boards should appropriately regulate such advertising.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Are disciplinary actions against DMSOs on the rise?

Are disciplinary actions against DMSOs on the rise?

dbclogoBy Michael W. Davis, DDS , DrBicuspid.com contributing writer

November 13, 2012 -- More than 30% of disciplinary actions discharged by the New Mexico Board of Dental Health between June 27, 2011, and August 7, 2012 involved dental professionals affiliated with dental management service organizations (DMSOs).

According to the state regulatory board's website, 24 different entities were sanctioned during this time period. One violator, which accumulated five different sanctions, was recorded as a single violator. No other violator generated more than a single dental board sanction.

Violators were divided into four categories:

  • Nonprofit (public health clinic, Veterans Affairs clinics, native tribal clinic, teaching facility, etc.)
  • Solo private practice
  • Small group practice (three doctors or fewer)
  • Interstate DMSO

Each violating entity was assigned a lettered designation, although the identity is public record information. DMSOs were likewise assigned a lettered designation. Tracking down the employment association at the time of violation was sometimes available within the dental board's formal complaint. However, often an Internet search was required.

Violations ran the gamut from alcohol and chemical abuse to advertising violations and breaches in standard of care, and everything in between. No attempt was made to correlate the type of violation to the employment association of the offender.

Interestingly, there were no disciplinary actions discharged against nonprofit entities or their dentists, during this time frame. The largest group generating disciplinary actions was assigned to solo private practicing dentists (54.2%). However, according to the ADA's 2010 Survey of Dental Practice-Employment of Dental Practice Personnel, solo practitioners comprised 69.6% of all dentists employed in private practice for 2009.

The statistic of concern is the 33.3% of disciplinary actions involving employment association with interstate DMSOs. According to the 2008 Health Policy Resources Center, only 3% of dentists are associated with very large group practices (20 or more dentists; ADA News, April 9, 2012). This represents a statistical order of magnitude of one, or approximately 10 times.

This finding was confirmed by Lili Reitz, executive director of the Ohio State Dental Board, who reported for a "Frontline"interview that in 2011 25% of complaints filed with the dental board (140 complaints in all) were against dentists at corporate chains.

The data in this report may be of interest to state regulatory dental boards, state and federal regulators of dental Medicaid, overseers of fraud and abuse for private insurance carriers, and state and federal prosecutors. But the findings of this report should also prompt concern for the general public and dental consumers in particular.

 

 

MDchart1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MDchart2

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Limiting Private Equity Dentistry: A Report by Michael Davis, DDS

The full report with all referenced materials and index can be download here.  A handy tool for fighting these crimes against humanity.
Support for Limiting Private Equity Dentistry- made to New Mexico Board of Dental Health Care
Report submitted in response to request of
Dr. Robert Gherardi, New Mexico Board of Dental Health Care-
June 13, 2012
By: Michael Davis, DDS
Background
It is important to get up to speed, with specific nomenclature of Interstate Corporate Dentistry, and specific factors of related Case Law.
A Dental Management Service Organization (DMSO) controls the operations of their subordinate dental clinics. They pay staff salaries, including doctors’ salaries. They control the supplies available to each dental clinic. They (not the individual dentist) select the laboratory to be employed for lab services (dentures, crowns, bridges, etc.). They set production quotas and bonuses for individual doctors & individual clinics. They monitor and evaluate each clinical service provided, by each Provider they employ. They control the bank accounts of each individual dental clinic, and sweep those bank accounts on a very regular basis. They pay rent on real estate, of the clinic facilities. They select & maintain dental equipment for each subordinate clinic. They are responsible for the Licensure & Accreditation of each employee. They generally supply the Malpractice Insurance for their Employee Dentists, but often will not purchase “Tail Coverage”.

On paper, the DMSO owns very few hard assets, but actually pulls the strings, of the Practice of Dentistry. Their most valuable assets are their contractual obligations, which have been demonstrated by the Fifth Circuit in re: OCA, Inc. December 12 2008 (07-30430), to represent the “Unlicensed and Unlawful Practice of Dentistry”. Increasingly, we are today seeing more DMSOs, which are offshore registered corporations, versus Delaware incorporation.