As the COVID-19 pandemic has reminded everyone, healthcare workers perform critical jobs under significant amounts of stress every day. While everyone else was sheltering in place, healthcare workers went to the frontlines and put their lives at risk to save others.
Unfortunately, many of these healthcare workers have been taken advantage of by the very programs that were set up to protect and help them. When a healthcare worker has issues with drugs or alcohol, they can seek treatment through an impaired practitioner program. These programs serve dual, laudable goals: 1) to protect the public from impaired healthcare workers, and 2) to provide treatment to these practitioners to ensure that they can practice their craft safety.
Despite these laudable goals, and as discussed in more detail here, these programs have become a trap for health care professionals. While these programs were established by Florida law, they are administered by private corporations with little guidance or oversight. This has led to serious concerns that these programs are over-recommending courses of treatment to make more money, knowing that the professionals subject to their programs must comply or lose their professional license and their career. This ABC investigative report discusses the claims of over-recommendations here.
The time for reform is now. As discussed in detail in this article, if you are healthcare professional who is being unfairly treated by an impaired practitioner program (e.g., IPN or PRN), it is time to band to together to challenge the legality of the current impaired practitioner programs and to lobby for legislative change to address the unaccountable nature of these programs.
Overview of the Impaired Practitioner Programs
The impaired practitioner programs were created by Florida Statute § 456.076 with the stated purpose of protecting “the health, safety, and welfare of the public.” § 456.076(3), Fla. Stat. While no reasonable person would disagree with that goal, the statute itself does very little in the way of ensuring that this goal is being met.
The majority of the statute is devoted to setting forth the structure and organization of these programs. Specifically, the statute creates “consultants” which means the “individual or entity who operates an approved impaired practitioner program pursuant to a contract with the [Department of Health].” § 456.076(1), Fla. Stat.
The Department of Health has entered into two consultant contracts 1) The Impaired Practitioners Network (“IPN”), which exclusively handles issues with nursing practitioners and 2) The Professional Resources Network (“PRN”) which handles all other professionals subject to the impaired practitioner programs statute. See 64B31-10.001, F.A.C.
The statute also creates evaluators. An evaluator is a “state-licensed or nationally certified individual who has been approved by a consultant or the department, who has completed an evaluator training program established by the consultant, and who is therefore authorized to evaluate practitioners as part of an impaired practitioner program.” § 456.076(1), Fla. Stat. Importantly, the statute provides that the consultants themselves (IPN and PRN) cannot evaluate practitioners – only independent evaluators can do that.
The statute further provides for the process for how a practitioner is admitted to an impaired practitioner program. Specifically, the statute provides that PRN or IPN “shall enter into a participant contract with an impaired practitioner and shall establish the terms of monitoring and shall include the terms in a participant contract. In establishing the terms of monitoring, the consultant may consider the recommendations of one or more approved evaluators, treatment programs, or treatment providers. A consultant may modify the terms of monitoring if the consultant concludes, through the course of monitoring, that extended, additional, or amended terms of monitoring are required for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public.” Fla. Stat. § 456.076(5).
There is no additional guidance, either through statute or rule, as to what can be contained in a monitoring contract, what monitoring needs to include, what standards the consultants or the evaluators need to apply when monitoring a practitioner, or any maximum length of time for the monitoring contract. IPN and PRN are left to their own discretion to set the terms of the contract. Moreover, there are no standards set for the evaluators. Evaluators are free to recommend whatever course of treatment they see fit and have no guidance as to when certain treatments should be recommended. For example, there is no statutory guidance to set forth the conditions as to when inpatient treatment is needed versus when a less invasive form of treatment could be given.
What this means from a practical perspective is that when a practitioner is referred to IPN or PRN, either by their employer or by the Department of Health, that person is stuck with whatever contract IPN or PRN sees fit based upon the recommendations of an evaluator who is free to make any recommendation he or she sees fit. There is little-to-no statutory or regulatory oversight as to how these consultants or evaluators deal with the practitioners that have been referred to them.
Once a practitioner has signed a contract with IPN or PRN, these consultants now have significant control over the practitioner and his or her license. Specifically, Florida Statutes provide that the following is grounds for discipline, including revocation or suspension of the practitioner’s license:
Being terminated from an impaired practitioner program that is overseen by a consultant as described in s. 456.076, for failure to comply, without good cause, with the terms of the monitoring or participant contract entered into by the licensee, or for not successfully completing any drug treatment or alcohol treatment program.
§ 456.072(1)(hh), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).
It is notable that “good cause” is not defined in the statute or any applicable rule. That is discussed in more detail below.
Thus, once a practitioner is in an impaired practitioner program, he must comply with all the terms imposed by that program, otherwise, he will be terminated and subject to licensure discipline.
The Good Cause Exception
One might believe that the “good cause” exception to being terminated would provide a check on IPN and PRN – keeping them from making recommendations that are, for example, not medically necessary or that are too cost prohibitive or onerous for the practitioner to complete. In reality though, the Department of Health has limited the definition of “good cause” so narrowly that it has been rendered meaningless.
While the Department of Health has not undergone any rulemaking to officially define “good cause” when a practitioner is facing discipline for being terminated from IPN or PRN, it has stated that “good cause” is limited to “serious and unavoidable events in the life of a practitioner; such as the return to active military duty, the acute appearance of a disabling medical condition, or death of the practitioner.” DOH v. Adebiyi, DOAH Case No. 18-4813PL, DOH’s Proposed Recommended Order (DOAH 2018). The issues with this definition should be readily apparent and none of those examples would include an example that would allow the practitioner to continue practicing.
Administrative law judges (“ALJs”) have agreed with DOH’s definition. For example, DOH v. Adebiyi, DOAH Case Number 18-4813PL, Recommended Order (DOAH 2018) involved a practitioner who suffered from mental health issues but had no diagnosed issues with drugs or alcohol. As a condition of her licensure, she was required to enroll in IPN. Despite not having any issues with drugs or alcohol, she was required to refrain from mood altering substances and submit to toxicology screening. Due to the costs of the toxicology Respondent missed numerous tests. The ALJ found the following:
- “[T]he cost of the monitoring program created a financial hardship on [respondent]”;
- “It has never been shown that [respondent] uses drugs”; and
- “There was no showing in the record that Ms. Adebiyi has ever caused actual damage, physical or otherwise, to a patient under her care, or that her violations of IPN procedures caused such damage.”
Even with all of this, the ALJ found that good cause did not exist for respondent to terminate her IPN contract and recommended that her license be suspended until she complied with IPN requirements.
Thus, despite no allegations of alcohol or drug use and no allegation that the practitioner was unable to practice safely, the fact that she could not afford drug testing did not constitute good cause for her to terminate her IPN contract.
This unabated definition of “good cause” creates a real issue for practitioners who are facing unnecessary, costly recommendations from IPN or PRN. They must either comply or face having their license suspended or revoked until they comply.
Potential Legal Challenges and Opportunities for Change
One option is to challenge DOH’s definition of “good cause” as an improper, unadopted rule. In fact, Smith & Associates has recently filed an unadopted rule challenge to this definition, arguing that DOH’s definition of “good cause” serves as a rule, as defined by Florida Statutes, but that has never been formally adopted as a rule. Moreover, this challenge argues that this definition constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legal authority – essentially that DOH is exceeding the authority given to it by the Legislature by adopting this limited, unsupported definition of “good cause.” The case has been assigned case number 21-0866 and its progress can be monitored here: https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ALJ/searchDOAH/.
Additionally, there is an argument that impaired practitioner programs themselves violate the Florida Constitution. Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides:
The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
Interpreting this, the Court has held that, while power can be delegated to other branches, the Legislature must define clear guidelines and limitations in the statute. Specifically, the Court has held, that “statutes granting power to the executive branch must clearly announce adequate standards to guide … in the execution of the powers delegated. The statute must so clearly define the power delegated that the [executive] is precluded from acting through whim, showing favoritism, or exercising unbridled discretion.” Florida Dept. of State, Div. of Elections v. Martin, 916 So. 2d 763, 770 (Fla. 2005).
Here, the Legislature establishes the Impaired Practitioner Programs in Florida Statute § 456.076. That statute provides no limits or guidance as to what can be contained in the participant contract, the limits on the treatments these programs can require, or any way for a participant to appeal or seek a second opinion. Further, as described above, Florida Statute § 456.072(1)(hh) allows DOH to revoke a participant’s license if they are terminated from a program, but provides no direction or guidance as to what grounds constitute good cause for a program to terminate a participant. In short, the Legislature has improperly delegated its authority to a third-party.
In addition to legal action, there is also the opportunity to lobby for a change in the statute and in the rules related to these programs and their administration. While no one wants to allow impaired health care professionals to be able to practice on patients, guidance needs to be given to these programs to protect the healthcare professionals that protect us. Putting protections in place to prevent these programs from taking advantage of healthcare workers should be a bipartisan goal.
The Need to Organize and Band Together
Legal challenges, lawsuits, lobbying, etc. are all expensive propositions. If each professional stuck in the IPN/PRN trap attempts to fight this alone, they are unlikely to have the resources or the sway to mount an effective challenge against these large, government backed institutions.
However, if they were to band together to form an association to fight for their interests, the collective costs to each practitioner would be minimal, but the collective effect would be significant. These programs affect thousands of practitioners every year. If even a small percentage of them banded together to form an association, it could launch significant legal challenges to these programs as well as lobby for common-sense legislative and regulatory reform.
If you are a practitioner affected by IPN or PRN and need help determining your options or if you are interested in forming an association to challenge these programs, please contact an attorney at Smith & Associates to discuss your rights.
