Given the current aggressive regulatory climate surrounding the treatment of chronic pain, it is worthwhile to look back and understand how the applicable law developed prior to the Legislature’s empowerment of the Texas Medical Board to oversee registered pain clinics in 2011. This prior law, including the Intractable Pain Treatment Act, was designed to safeguard physicians who treat chronic pain while remaining within the standard of care. It has been my experience as an attorney representing numerous physicians, mid-level providers, and pharmacies, that this prior law has largely been either forgotten or eroded to the point it no longer provides real protection to medical professionals.

The Intractable Pain Treatment Act (IPTA),  separate from the Medical Practice Act, is codified at Chapter 107, Texas Occupation Code, and was intended to provide physicians with a safe harbor in prescribing controlled substances and dangerous drugs to treat pain. In this post we provide a background of this Act and its current relevance, or lack thereof, in the practice of medicine. 

The Intractable Pain Treatment Act was passed in 1989 to deal with the problem that physicians were being disciplined by the Texas Medical Board because the Board refused to distinguish habitual users of narcotic drugs from patients with genuine medical needs. Prior to the passage of the IPTA, the Medical Practice Act allowed the Texas Medical Board, known at that time as the Texas Board of Medical Examiners, to discipline physicians for prescribing controlled substances or dangerous drugs to a person "known to be habitual users of narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or dangerous drugs or to a person who the physician should have known was a habitual user of the drugs." This phrasing of the Medical Practice Act made patients taking opioids to alleviate genuine suffering "habitual users." Accordingly, physicians prescribing pain medication to cancer patients were subject to disciplinary action by the Board. Such was the effect that physicians refused to prescribe these therapeutic drugs and hospitals refused to let physicians prescribe them on the premises. 

The Intractable Pain Act of 1989 sought to rectify this basic problem by protecting physicians from Texas Medical Board discipline if they prescribed the medication for "intractable pain."   Intractable pain is defined as pain the cause of which cannot be removed, treated, or cured. The IPTA also prohibited hospitals from restricting credentialed physicians from prescribing pain medications for intractable pain. 

In 1993 the Legislature modified the Medical Practice Act to prohibit doctors from prescribing to a person who was a known "abuser" of controlled medications. In 1996 the Legislature amended the Intractable Pain Act to allow physicians to prescribe controlled medication even to such abusers as long as the medication was strictly for the management of their diagnosed pain which the physician had a duty to monitor. The physician was also required to document the understanding between the doctor and the patient and to consult with an addiction specialist as appropriate. These restrictions were only required when dealing with patients who were drug abusers or had a history of drug abuse. 

In its final form the IPTA was meant to provide a safe harbor for Texas doctors who treated long-term pain provided the controlled medications they prescribed were actually for an underlying pain condition. This safe harbor protects physicians who treat known drug abusers for intractable pain provided they monitor the patient and consult with the appropriate mental health expert. Yet the protections of the safe harbor are slight; by the Act’s own terms, the Texas Medical Board can still discipline physicians if they prescribe non-therapeutically or prescribe in a manner inconsistent with the public welfare.  

The safe harbor provision provided by the Intractable Pain Treatment Act has been recognized, albeit modified, by the Board in its pain management rules codified at Chapter 170, Title 22 Texas Administrative Code. The rules recognize that pain treatment is a vital and integral part of the practice of medicine and that doctors should be able to treat pain using sound clinical judgment without the fear of disciplinary action from the Texas Medical Board. Yet, the rules go on to list several actions that should be involved in the treatment of chronic pain including the formulation of a pain management contract requiring random drug screening.

From the rules it is apparent that whereas the Intractable Pain Treatment Act required heightened monitoring and more rigorous documentation merely for known drug abusers, the Board’s most recent rules make that standard applicable to all long-term pain management patients. While the rules do call themselves "guidelines" it should be noted that the Texas Medical Board will allow deviation from the guidelines only if the physician’s rational for treatment indicates sound clinical judgment documented in the medical records.


Continue Reading

As we reported earlier this month, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) along with several state agencies, including the Texas Medical Board (TMB) and Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP), has been increasingly active in Houston over the past few months. More than ever before, the joint state and federal taskforce has taken a scorched earth

Over the past month, the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration has drastically increased their activity in the Houston area. This includes a dramatic upswing in the number of unannounced raids targeting pain management physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioner, and pharmacies. At this juncture, most every pain management clinic and pharmacy in the Houston should be

As the Texas physician shortage continues, more and more physicians from foreign countries are coming to the state to meet the shortfall. This blog post describes how the Texas Medical Board and legislature have limited the geographic locations in which foreign physicians can practice. This post also discusses the constitutional implications of the law given that it allows the Board to discriminate against foreign physicians.

In 2011, the Texas legislature amended the Medical Practice Act to require that foreign physicians who were neither US citizens nor permanent residents (green card holders) work in a Medically Underserved Area for three years, or promise to so work, in order to qualify for a Texas medical license. The law does not affect current license-holders, physicians who have practiced at least one year prior to September 1, 2012 on a Texas Physician-in-Training permit, or physicians who submitted their applications for full licensure prior to September 1, 2012. Other foreign physicians not subject to one of the foregoing exceptions are subject to the new law.

The main effect of this law is to force physicians in the United States on an H-1B work visa to practice for three years in a Medically Underserved Area. Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs) are designated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and administered in Texas by the Texas Department of State Health Services. MUAs are areas which suffer from a significant shortage of personal health services and are determined according to a formula weighing a geographic location’s poverty and infant mortality rates, the percentage of elderly population, and the ratio of primary care physicians. Many rural counties in Texas have been designated as a MUA as have certain disadvantaged areas in large cities such as San Antonio.

The law is primarily designed to impose the same rules on a foreign physician coming to Texas under a H-1B visa as those applicable to an individual coming to Texas pursuant to a J-1 visa. Foreign physicians coming to the United States to do their residencies usually enter on either a J-1 or an H-1B work visa. Under the federal laws, the J-1 visa allows a physician to do his residency, but at the end of his stipulated time he must return to his country of citizenship and stay there for two years. He is not eligible to seek green card status. However, if the physician elects to work in a MUA, they can receive a waiver and have their status adjusted to H-1B status without having to leave the US and face the 2-year residence abroad requirement. The physician is also then allowed to apply for a green card.

Under federal law, a physician who initially enters on an H-1B does not have to face these burdens. They are eligible to petition for a green card without a break in their stay and employment in the United States. Nor does such a physician have to obtain a waiver by working in a MUA. 

The new Texas law forces a H-1B physician to work in a MUA just as her J-1 counterpart would by making practicing in such an area a mandatory requirement for licensure. It is certainly interesting that the Texas Medical Board is now effectively pursuing immigration policy and determining where a foreign physician can geographically work. There is no claim being made that the H-1B physicians are inferior and so demand more scrutiny than American citizens. In fact a contrary inference may be drawn since it is mandated that the H-1B physician provide care for some of the most medically vulnerable populations in Texas. Moreover, most H-1B foreign physicians will have completed a residency program in Texas. Thus, the Texas law is not in place to protect the public from foreign physicians. The law is merely a way of ensuring that H-1B physicians take jobs in areas no American physician wants to go to—the MUA.

It is also likely possible this new law would have an overall negative impact on the number of new physicians coming to Texas to practice by discouraging the immigration of foreign doctors. If the only way for a foreign physician to practice in Texas is to do so in a MUA (an area which by definition has, for whatever reason, not proven attractive to Texas physicians), they may very likely simply go to another state following their residency in Texas. In effect, Texas health resources spent training new physicians will ultimately go to benefit other states.

It is also important to keep in mind that a foreign physician in the country on a H-1B visa cannot open their own practice, even in a MUA. They can only work for a sponsoring employer. Accordingly, foreign physicians are being forced to find a pre-existing physician practice in an area which is designated a MUA precisely because there is already severe shortage of physicians. It is unclear how areas which are already struggling to economically support a basic health care structure are going to integrate an influx of foreign physicians.


Continue Reading

As tuition at US medical schools continues to increase at an astronomical rate, more and more aspiring doctors are looking abroad, particularly to the Caribbean, to pursue their medical degrees.  Moreover, due to the shortage of physicians in the United States the country needs more physicians from other countries.   Both sets of medical graduates of foreign medical schools face challenges when they seek licensure in the United States. This post particularly describes the additional burdens faced by graduates of foreign medical schools as they seek licensure in Texas. 

The Texas Medical Board regulates the practice of medicine in the State of Texas. This includes determining licensure requirements for medical school graduates. Part of this determination requires verifying that the graduate met certain minimum requirements during the course of their medical education. While such a verification for graduates of United States medical schools are relatively easy—the Board relies on the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Professional Education to approve those schools—the verification of foreign medical schools is a much more cumbersome process. It should be noted that the process described here is independent of citizenship status—i.e. the vetting process for foreign medical schools is the same regardless of whether the foreign medical school graduate is a United States citizen or a citizen of another country.  

The verification process first begins with a degree equivalency determination. The foreign medical graduate (FMG) must get their credentials evaluated by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), a non-profit organization that deals with determining the equivalency of foreign medical degrees. ECFMG will weigh the foreign transcript and grades and convert the coursework into an equivalent for a US school. If ECFMG determines that the degree received is equivalent to a US Medical degree then it will award the FMG a certificate saying so. ECFMG may find that a foreign medical degree is equivalent to a US medical degree even if that degree is a baccalaureate one. Obtaining a certificate from ECFMG is also required before the foreign medical school graduate may sit for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), which is the standard medical licensing examination in the United States. 

However, a certificate from the ECFMG is only a starting point for the foreign medical graduate. The Texas Medical Board further requires that the foreign medical graduate show that the school itself rather than just the coursework is substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school. Such a determination requires documentation of:

  • a Foreign Educational Credentials Evaluation from the Office of International Education Services of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) or an International Credential Evaluation from the Foreign Credential Service of America (FCSA), or another similar entity as approved by the board;
  • a board questionnaire, to be completed by the medical school and returned directly to the board;
  • a copy of the medical school’s catalog;
  • verification from the country’s educational agency confirming the validity of school and licensure of applicant;
  • proof of written agreements between the medical school and all hospitals that are not located in the same country as the medical school where medical education was obtained;
  • proof that the faculty members of the medical school had written contracts with the school if they taught a course outside the country where the medical school was located;
  • proof that the medical education courses taught in the United States complied with the higher education laws of the state in which the courses were taught;
  • proof that the faculty members of the medical school who taught courses in the United States were on the faculty of the program of graduate medical education when the courses were taught; and
  • proof that all education completed in the United States or Canada was while the applicant was enrolled as a visiting student as evidenced by a letter of verification from the U.S. or Canadian medical school.


Continue Reading

Following the movement of its prior General Counsel to the Office of the Inspector General, the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners recently hired Julie Hildebrand to serve as the Board’s new head attorney. For the past several years Ms. Hildebrand has served as the lead litigation attorney for the Texas State Board of Pharmacy.

In 2010, the Texas Legislature created the Texas Physician Health Program (PHP), effectively shifting the oversight of licensed Texas physicians with substance abuse disorders and mental illness from the Texas Medical Board to a program uniquely tailored to monitor those issues. Responsible in part for the success of this idea is the sentiment that physicians generally

Since the summer of 2011, the Texas Medical Board has been considering adopting a new rule applicable to non-surgical, cosmetic procedures such as Botox or dermal filler injections. The proposal would create new standards and requirements applicable to physicians who perform or delegate the performance of such procedures. Currently, this area is covered by

In the past few years, my Firm has handled an increasing number of cases with the Texas Board of Nursing involving social media websites and the disclosure of confidential patient information. This can be a confusing topic as there is considerable gray area as to what constitutes the impermissible release of patient information and