"Have you been dx'd or tx'd for any mental or..."

[chagall]

Looking through the licensing forms, I came across the question, "Have you been dx'd or tx'd for any mental or physical illness or condition that has hindered or might serve to hinder your ability to practice medicine?" Definitely not an unreasonable question, and I guess not unexpected...but is this to be interpreted somewhat loosely, or not?

I've had more than my share of health issues, although I've struggled through the large majority of the time...a few of the problems are likely to pop up again at some point in the future, though.

But if I check "yes," there is a form you have to sign allowing the medical board to look at all of your medical records (at least that's the impression I've gotten while reading this late at night). And (besides the privacy aspect), that would not necessarily support my case of being capable of going through residency.

I just want to be honest, but also want to get licensed! Has anyone else dealt with this? Or does anyone have a recommendation of what to do? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Blade28]

I guess it's hard to know what to tell you since we don't know the specifics (nor should we, for that matter).

My question is, do your past health issues still bother you today (with or without medication)? Or is this something (like a previous illness) that won't recur?

 

[chagall]

I guess it's hard to know what to tell you since we don't know the specifics (nor should we, for that matter).

My question is, do your past health issues still bother you today (with or without medication)? Or is this something (like a previous illness) that won't recur?

Thanks...yes, I do still have episodic problems with several health issues. At the worst, I have once had to drop a rotation and switch to a lighter one, taking a week off in between. So I guess this is something I should "admit" to on my residency forms?

 

[Winged Scapula]

This has been discussed numerous times on this, and other forums. Some have given the advice not to admit to anything because of the problems it creates. Others have suggested that you always tell the truth because lying on your license application is enough to deny you a license. I'd suggest a search to find these other threads as you may find them helpful.

The way the question is worded does seem to indicate that it could be interpreted loosely.

 

[Faebinder]

Run it by your new program director. That's the safest answer.

 

[Shalom77]

Run it by your new program director. That's the safest answer.

I disagree with this. That's not the first person I would run this question by given the potential adverse consequences.

Personally if in doubt I would start with my doctor and then go from there.

This has been discussed a lot in other threads. Happy searching.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

If you're going to a program with an Occ Med department, that's also an option. It creates a HIPAA firewall between your PD and your health records. Occ Med is guaranteed to work closely with the board for licenses, so they will know. I doubt your PCP, possibly in a different state, will know what to do.

 

[Shalom77]

If you're going to a program with an Occ Med department, that's also an option. It creates a HIPAA firewall between your PD and your health records. Occ Med is guaranteed to work closely with the board for licenses, so they will know. I doubt your PCP, possibly in a different state, will know what to do.

Occ med is a good idea, the other option is if your state has a physicians health program they may be the best option in terms of finding out what the state medical board really wants. It may also matter how the rotation switch and week off was documented in the OPs medical school records.

The advantage of talking to your treating physician is not that they will know the laws in whatever state, but rather that they can give you some prognostic opinion about your illness. Also if you answer yes, you will likely need a letter from that person in any case although I think in some states require you to give them all medical records related to the illness in question. It just seems like a good idea to talk to them to find out what that person thinks and what information will be released.

I would think it would be even more useful so when an illness has never interfered with any rotations in medical school or otherwise and the question really only relates to whether it's likely to in the future. While certainly an applicant can make this judgment - a doctor who commonly treats this illness is likely to make a more informed judgment based on seeing many people with the illness not just the one. It may also protect against the charge of lying, if the applicant answers no, since the decision was not made in isolation but rather in consultation with a medical expert (in the case where it clearly has not interfered with any performance in medical school.)

 

[fotolilith]

Looking through the licensing forms, I came across the question, "Have you been dx'd or tx'd for any mental or physical illness or condition that has hindered or might serve to hinder your ability to practice medicine?" Definitely not an unreasonable question, and I guess not unexpected...but is this to be interpreted somewhat loosely, or not?

Unfortunately, I had a friend who was not able to get her license because she admitted to prior psychiatric treatment on her application. They did not outright deny her, but they put her in limbo for so long about whether she could get her license that she lost her first year spot and had to reapply.

First, they told her that she had to get "evaluated" by their own psychiatrist, who charged several thousand dollars and wrote the most unflattering opinion of her *hair and clothing.* Then they said she would have to plead her case with a group that keep on rescheduling their meeting. It seemed like they just wanted to make her give up.

It's a shame that the medical profession still holds a stigma for psychiatric treatment. You would think that they would *applaud* people who get help for their problems, but they really just want someone to parade as their example of "cracking down on bad doctors."

 

[razorback58]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_6_63/ai_110459878

I know of a resident that has two undergraduate degrees, a master degree and an MD degree that was subjected to an evaluation and deemed to be ADD. No prior meds or intervention to make it where they are today. Sent to an MD to get medication. The only crime that was committed here was the resident was overworked because others were not doing their job and people were "stabing them in the back" by telling out and out lies to the attendings who spend very little time with the resident and only take the upper levels word for things. This all started when the resident pointed out that the upper levels were sleeping and not responding to calls.

So what now? If the resident refuses to get treatment then they are deemed in denial and uncooperative etc.. The psychologist who evaluated the resident was employed by the program. They perception was that they had ADD and was treated and diagnosed with the disorder.


Read this article about disciplinary psychiatry. It tells of a resident that was forced into evaluation and then was dismissed because she refused. This is a great article that should be read by everyone in residency.

It could happen to any of us if we "rock the boat"

 

[Shalom77]

Unfortunately, I had a friend who was not able to get her license because she admitted to prior psychiatric treatment on her application. They did not outright deny her, but they put her in limbo for so long about whether she could get her license that she lost her first year spot and had to reapply.

Where was this - Texas?

If so she's not alone.

http://www.aapsonline.org/tmb.php

Some states are better than others though.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

This subject was addressed in Newsweek this week.

 

[michaelrack]

I've had more than my share of health issues, although I've struggled through the large majority of the time...a few of the problems are likely to pop up again at some point in the future, though.
.

There's a difference between health issues that affect the ability to be a resident and the ability to practice medicine in a private practice post-residency situation. For example, a IM intern could have an orthopedic foot situation that made it difficult for him to round, run to codes, etc but not affect his ability to function in an IM office setting. IN this case I feel that he could honestly answer "no" on the licensing form.

Answering "yes" to the question on the license form isn't going to get you any benefits or accomodations, it will just follow you around for the rest of your career and make your life difficult.

 

[Neuronix]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_6_63/ai_110459878

An interesting and disturbing article that was from late 2003. Does anyone know how that lawsuit (Klaiman v. Ohio State University Medical Center) panned out? I tried to do a Google search but was unsuccessful.

I already know how the NRMP antitrust lawsuit went

 

[PlAnEjaNe]

An interesting and disturbing article that was from late 2003. Does anyone know how that lawsuit (Klaiman v. Ohio State University Medical Center) panned out? I tried to do a Google search but was unsuccessful.

I already know how the NRMP antitrust lawsuit went

I found this document when I did a google search for "Klaiman v. Ohio State"

 

[turquoiseblue]

Simply, if you don't think it would interfere with your work as a practitioner, then say no. I think a practitioner's load is a lot lighter than a resident and you can likely have control of your own hours in some instances. That way it wouldn't interfere with your abilities.

If at all possible, find a way to say no, especially if it is very mild or could be made to be mild with medications, on there because they could make it a bigger deal than it really is.

For example, let's say someone had MS, well they can still work, because the meds keep them in check. If they didn't take meds, well that would be another story. If you do have a disease at the level of MS maybe it would be good to say yes and give an explanation about it, but also subdue it to show that you are capable of working but only need a little time off. If it is something very mild, and you know your workload wont be that much, check no for that answer.

Maybe if you took certain medications that allow you to function to a normal level capacity, for whatever reasons, then you can be considered to be in normal condition and not be affected by any workload.

If you are still in question or doubt, anonymously call your state board (numbers are on fsmb.org site) and ask them..don't tell them your name or who you are just ask them and tell them your problem and see what they say about problems that may arise if you state that, or if that problem you have is severe or serious enough to answer "yes", etc.