This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Lovick Thomas VI, MD
Irvine, Calif

JAMA. 1991;265(24):3244-3245.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Gellhorn's¹ speculation that physician recredentialing and the assurance it would provide to the public might assist in medical malpractice tort reform is absurd. At present, physicians are subjected to strict licensing standards. In California, in addition to proof of medical school transcripts, original copy of diploma, certifying letter from the dean of the medical school, successful completion of FLEX (Federation Licensing Examination) or National Board examinations, and 1 year of supervised internship, the physicians are fingerprinted and computerized images are sent to local, state, and federal authorities, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Despite this, California faces a medical malpractice crisis. Recredentialing dodges true tort reform. Perhaps the attorneys should be "recredentialed."

The bottom line for recredentialing of physicians should be improved patient care and/or decreased costs of patient care. However, no scientific study has been performed that demonstrates that periodic . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?