Category Archives: Department of Health

A Call for Rational Reform of IPN and PRN Laws and Regulations

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.

Administrative Law Judge Rejects Claim of Sexual Misconduct by Physician

In a recent article, I discussed the ruling by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the case of Department of Health v. VanBuskirk, which rejected revocation of a physician’s license based on alleged sexual misconduct. See “Physician Discipline Rejected by Judge.” In another Recommended Order entered on March 1, 2020, an ALJ rejected the Department of Health’s claims seeking disciplinary action against a physician based upon allegations of sexual misconduct. See Department of Health v. Khan, DOAH Case No. 20-4079 PL. Unlike the prior case, this most recent decision did not involve a factual dispute over whether a sexual encounter occurred. The physician conceded that a sexual encounter did indeed occur. However, the ALJ found that there was no “physician-patient relationship” because the physician had previously severed the patient relationship months prior to the date of the encounter. The physician previously was the patients’ primary care physician for 13-14 years. However, the patient ended her patient relationship five months prior to the sexual encounter, when she became unhappy with the care and treatment she had received, and her feeling that the physician had committed a major medical error when he ordered the wrong procedure for her. The former patient retained a new primary care provider. She had contacted the physician again by Facebook and asked to see him as a friend. On the day of the encounter, she did not sign in as a patient, was not seen as a patient by staff in a patient room and met with the physician in his private office area. There was no doubt an aggressive and unwelcome sexual advance was made by the physician, but the judge ruled that because there was not an existing physician-patient relationship the actions could not be the basis for a license disciplinary proceeding.

It remains to be seen whether the Department of Health will accept the ALJ’s Recommended Order or will reject the ALJ’s reasoning as to the existence and termination of the physician-patient relationship. (The Agency could reject the conclusion of law interpreting disciplinary rules as being as reasonable or more reasonable than the ALJ conclusion. See 120.57(1(l), Fla. Stat.) Moreover, the physician could still potentially be subject to criminal prosecution, with a conviction supplying a new independent basis for license disciplinary action.

Physician Discipline Rejected by Judge

Perhaps the most difficult professional license proceedings are those that involve allegations of sexual misconduct by a health care practitioner. In these days of the #MeToo movement, most people, and perhaps most judges, are inclined to credit an alleged victim’s allegations of predatory behavior by a person in a position of trust and power. Faced with such an allegation in a formal Administrative Complaint by a state licensing Board, many practitioners feel overwhelmed and, in some instances, simply surrender a license to practice rather than face the potential humiliation, anguish, and uncertainty of a formal proceeding where they will be deposed, cross examined, and possibly found guilty of horrible professional misconduct. (Victims may also have these same reservations about reporting or proceeding with a complaint against a licensed professional.) A recent decision by a Florida Administrative Law Judge does give hope to the wrongly accused licensed professional that they can prevail in a fair review of the evidence.

In a Recommended Order published February 24, 2021 in the case of Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine vs. Richard Van Buskirk, D.O., Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Elizabeth MacArthur cleared the accused physician of all charges after a meticulous review of the testimony and evidence. The ALJ noted the legal standard for a license revocation, suspension, or penalty case is clear and convincing evidence of the alleged misconduct. The ALJ cited to well established case law noting:

A proceeding to suspend or revoke a license, or to impose other discipline upon a licensee, is penal in nature. State ex rel. Vining v. Fla. Real Estate Comm’n, 281 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla. 1973). Petitioner therefore bears the burden of proving the charges against Respondent by clear and convincing evidence, as the parties acknowledged at the outset of the hearing. Fox v. Dep’t of Health, 994 So. 2d 416, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing Dep’t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996)).

As stated by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomowitz v. Walker, 492 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). This burden of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict; however, “it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.” Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros., Inc., 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

The ALJ further noted that penal statutes must be construed in terms of their literal meaning and words used by the Legislature may not be expanded to broaden the application of such statutes. Elmariah v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., 574 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Griffis v. Fish & Wildlife Conserv. Comm’n, 57 So. 3d 929, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Beckett v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). “No conduct is to be regarded as included within a penal statute that is not reasonably proscribed by it; if there are any ambiguities included, they must be construed in favor of the licensee.” McClung v. Crim. Just. Stds. & Training Comm’n, 458 So. 2d 887, 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

Applying these well-established legal principles to the evidence at hand, the ALJ concluded that there was no clear or convincing evidence of improper conduct. The ALJ noted that the doctor had been in practice for 30 years with no prior disciplinary proceeding brought against him. The Judge credited the physician’s testimony regarding 13 office visits over 9½ months with the patient. According to the doctor’s testimony, on each occasion he followed his standard practice including offering the patient a gown for the physical treatment, and a chaperone in the room if desired. The Judge found the doctor’s testimony to be credible and persuasive that there was no improper conduct. The alleged victim testified that on 11 of the 13 occasions there was no misconduct, but on two occasions the doctor inappropriately rested his hand on her pubic area during an upper thigh manipulation for a chronic pain condition. The ALJ noted inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s testimony, as well as in statements she made to other witnesses who were presented in deposition testimony, as purported corroboration of her account based on disclosure she made to these witnesses (including her own mental health provider). The ALJ also noted that the physical description of the allegations did not seem possible based on the physical position of the physician and the victim according to her testimony. Finally, the ALJ noted that at least one witness presented to corroborate her account noted that she mentioned she has retained a lawyer to sue for monetary damages, and that she would rather have a monetary judgement than have the doctor criminally prosecuted.

Ultimately, the ALJ based the decision on a thorough review of all the testimony and evidence. Applying the proper legal standard, she concluded that the evidence was not clear or convincing. Nobody could reasonably argue that a health care practitioner should be sanctioned whenever there is evidence of sexual misconduct with a patient. Practitioners have a clear legal, ethical, and moral duty to not engage in any such behavior, and the licensing Boards should strictly enforce standards in disciplinary proceedings when credible complaints are brought forth. However, the Recommended Order in this case affirms that the accused does have due process rights, however difficult it may be to go through a public process to reach a decision rendered by an impartial fact finder based on the evidence.

The IPN/PRN Trap

The stresses put on medical professionals, especially licensed physicians and nurses, can be extreme. Long hours, emergency responses, and dealing with patients’ severe medical issues – some who will not survive – can take an emotional toll on even the strongest doctor or nurse. However, when a medical professional turns to alcohol or drugs to help cope with these issues, the outcomes can be disastrous for both the patients and the professional.

Acknowledging the stresses that medical professionals face, the Florida Legislature authorized the creation of the Professional Resource Network and the Intervention Project for Nurses to help medical professionals (and other licensed professionals) with alcohol and drug abuse problems.

While the programs have lofty and laudable goals, the reality is that, for many professionals who enter these programs, PRN and IPN can become an inescapable nightmare.

How the Trap is Set

The problem starts when a doctor or nurse does something wrong. It can be directly related to patient care, such as showing up to work hungover or impaired, or it can be unconnected to work, such as being charged with Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). In any case, the Department of Health (“DOH”), which oversees both the Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing, is notified.

Once DOH is notified, they will evaluate the claim. If DOH believes that the infraction impacts patient care (and DOH almost always believes that the infraction will affect patient care), they will issue an administrative complaint against the doctor or nurse seeking any number of potential remedies, including the imposing of fines and the revocation of the medical or nursing license.

However, once the administrative complaint is served, DOH will typically offer what seems like a very reasonable resolution, especially when the potential alternative is having the license revoked. That resolution involves the doctor or nurse agreeing to sign up for PRN or IPN and have their license suspended until they complete the program. DOH will also usually require that the investigative costs be paid as well.

The doctor or nurse, faced with the choice of either accepting this settlement or being forced to hire an attorney to fight these claims and potentially lose their license, believes that this is a reasonable solution and agrees to the settlement.

Once the agreement is signed and incorporated into a Final Order, the doctor or nurse must sign an agreement with PRN or IPN, agreeing to follow all its terms and agreeing to follow whatever medical treatment the program believes is appropriate, otherwise the doctor or nurse will be terminated from the program. Now the trap is set.

The Trap Gets Sprung

What many doctors and nurses who enter PRN or IPN do not realize is that, while it is an independent, non-governmental entity, if it cancels the contract with the doctor or nurse, that is an independent reason for DOH to revoke the doctor or nurse’s license. Fla. Stat. § 456.072(1)(hh). Thus, when PRN or IPN “recommend” a course of treatment – no matter how extreme or expensive – it must be followed, or the contract will be terminated. If the contract is terminated – DOH will almost certainly seek to revoke the license.

What happens to many people involved in these programs is that, regardless of what brought them there, they are “prescribed” an intensive program that involves no alcohol and bears significant costs, such as Intensive Outpatient Program Treatment. There is no opportunity for the doctor or nurse to appeal this decision – they must comply.

This is where the trap gets sprung. The doctor or nurse is already out of work due to the license suspension and now they are spending any accumulated savings on the initial program. Further, despite whether the person believes they have an alcohol problem or not, they are forbidden from having any alcohol. If that doctor or nurse has a urine test positive for alcohol (or voluntarily admits to using alcohol), even if it was a single, social drink – the trap is sprung.

Once there is any non-compliance, no matter how small, the provider will then “prescribe” an even more extreme program such as inpatient treatment. These programs can cost over $40,000 and must be attended or the contract will be cancelled. People who have already had their license suspended, who are out of work, and who have already spent any savings they had on the prior treatment, cannot afford this treatment. Regardless, if they do not attend, the contract will be cancelled and DOH will then seek to revoke the license. The practitioner is now trapped – pay money they don’t have for treatment they don’t need or lose their license.

“Good Cause” Defenses

The statute at issue allows DOH to revoke the license for:

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.

Fla. Stat. § 456.072(1)(hh) (emphasis added).

A reasonable person may think that not having the money to comply with the treatment plan would constitute “good cause” or that being prescribed a treatment plan that doesn’t align with the problems the person is facing would constitute “good cause,” but the administrative law judges (“ALJ”) and the Department of Health would disagree.

While “good cause” is not defined in the statute, ALJs have limited its application to situations that make it almost superfluous for the Legislature to have included. As one ALJ wrote, “[s]ome examples of good cause for failing to comply with the terms of an impaired practitioner monitoring contract, as found in one DOAH case, include 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.” Department of Health v. Grace Mary Guastella, M.D., DOAH Case Number 2013-12197 (DOAH 2017). Thus, according to these ALJs, unless you are active duty military, so disabled as to not be able to practice, or dead, you don’t have good cause to violate the treatment plan.

Once a practitioner is trapped in PRN or IPN, even if it only started out as “drinking alcoholic beverages, if only socially on rare occasion,” whatever the recommended course of treatment is, no matter how intense or expensive, it must be followed or the contract will be terminated and DOH will seek to revoke the license. Department of Health v. Grace Mary Guastella, M.D., DOAH Case Number 17-2923PL (DOAH 2018).

At least as the law stands, as interpreted by DOH and ALJs, good cause is rare and doesn’t provide the protection that a reasonable person reading the statute would believe it would provide.

Potential Challenges

One potential challenge that a practitioner caught in this trap could make is that the “good cause” exception has been read too narrowly and should encompass the ability to pay for the treatment and the medical necessity of the treatment. To date, no successful challenges to the existing “good cause” factors has been made. However, with passage of Amendment 6 to Florida’s Constitution in 2018, judges no longer need to defer to an administrative agency’s (like DOH) interpretation of a statute. See http://smithlawtlh.com/agencies-longer-afforded-deference-interpretation-rules-statutes/

In almost any other context, before a court can impose a penalty due to a person’s failure to pay some fine or court ordered payment (e.g., restitution, court fines, and child support), the Court must first determine if the person has the ability to pay. If the person does not have the ability to pay, then the Court cannot punish the person for not paying. See Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1002 (Fla. 2011) (“an automatic revocation of probation without evidence presented as to ability to pay to support the trial court’s finding of willfulness violates due process.”); Vincent v. State, 699 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“In order to revoke a defendant’s probation based on a failure to pay restitution, a trial court must find that the defendant had the ability to pay the restitution not only before ordering restitution [but also] before revoking probation for failure to pay restitution imposed as a condition thereof.”); and Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“finding that Pompey’s incarceration was unlawful because there was no evidence at all to support the trial court’s affirmative finding that the petitioner had the ability to pay a [back child support].”).

A strong argument could be made that the ALJ’s limited interpretation of the “good cause” exception and the imposition of sanctions without determining the practitioner’s ability to pay violates the statute and the practitioner’s due process rights.

There is also a potential challenge to the entire PRN/IPN setup as a violation of 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.

Based on the foregoing, there is a strong argument to be made that both PRN and IPN are unconstitutional and, without additional guidance from the Legislature, they should not be permitted at all or, at the very least, DOH cannot take action against a practitioner for not complying with the terms of a PRN or IPN contract or course of treatment.

Conclusion

If you are being offered IPN or PRN as a term of settlement or if you have already agreed to PRN or IPN and are having trouble meeting their requirements, you should contact an experienced health care attorney to discuss your rights.