But examination of documents obtained under public disclosure rules suggests Washington medical board (MQAC) members should have their heads examined. I analyzed documents obtained under public disclosure rules of the case of Dr. John Perry which reveal evidence of bias require Dr. Perry to undergo a treatment long discredited by mainstream psychiatry whose theoretical underpinnings the immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association described last year as a “brilliant fiction.”
The extensive records I obtained document allegations of boundary violations by this now approximately 59 year old physician with approximately 19 prior complaints (almost all of which MQAC closed without further investigation) and at least one malpractice suit. A psychiatric evaluation, according to a Department of Health news release determined that Dr. Perry suffers from an “untreated narcissistic personality disorder so severe that it renders him unsafe to practice.”
MQAC appears to have suspended Dr. Perry’s license, requiring that he participate “in insight oriented psychodynamic or psychoanalytic psychotherapy for 5 years, including compliance with treatment with medications, if specific indications for treatment arise during therapy. Respondent must have participated in a minimum of two sessions per week for at least the first two years of treatment. If respondent’s treating psychiatrist documents that positive changes in respondents mental condition have occurred after the first two years of treatment the frequency of treatment sessions may be reduced to one session per week during the following three years of treatment. Respondent’s treating psychiatrist must submit a declaration that respondent has complied with these terms .”
Since personality changes little, if at all, over time, one must wonder how this “severe” disorder might explain Dr. Perry’s problems, how he managed to live with it until now, or how it’s treatment might produce resolution, even if this psychoanalysis effected a cure, which it likely would not. Add to these the additional fact that Dr. Perry could not likely find a doctoral level professional who could claim competence (much less actually possess it) in Kennewick, Washington, and this endeavour betrays a ruse perpetrated on both Dr. Perry and Washingtonians. Dr. Perry at least would do just as well to learn how to appear contrite when confronted with his purported misadventures.
MQAC denigrates Dr. Perry by claiming that rejection of his practice by insurance companies like Molina (“many insurers will no longer reimburse for his services”) adds evidence of his incompetence, and the fact that his practice consists of “an extremely large percent... of high-risk, low-income patients... vulnerable due to their limited social and financial resources, poor health status, and/or drug or alcohol dependency” suggests exploitation. Rather, I wonder who will care for these uninsured patients now that he cannot. As for rejection of a physician by an insurance company, such is at least equally likely to have resulted from refusal to compromise patient care for the financial benefit of the company. Additional evidence of MQAC bias in favor of insurance companies has recently manifested in the ill-advised appointment of Robert Small, MD, an insurance company medical director, to the commission.
Police reports reviewed suggest that in the aftermath of suspension of his license, psychoanalysis notwithstanding, Dr. Perry, perhaps unable to afford even effective psychiatric treatment, contemplated suicide and admitted himself to a psychiatric hospital.
Surely Washingtonians and Washington physicians deserve better from their Department of Health. Why does the Federation of State Medical Boards continue to fail to provide oversight or standards to its member boards? Contact your state representatives and executives and encourage them to rescind appointment of Robert Small to MQAC and to establish policies to prevent appointment of anyone contaminated by involvement in the health insurance industry to positions giving oversight to medical professionals. The conflict of interest is clear.