Medical professionals or their employers call PNAP case workers and intake administrators for numerous reasons. The initial complaint call against the licensee generates the “Letter of Concern.” It is the response call from the licensee to PHMP/PNAP/SARPH/PAP that starts the proverbial ball rolling. Here are several important facts each licensee should be aware of before calling PNAP.
PNAP/PAP/PHMP caseworkers are told to not tell inquiring licensees the truth. PNAP and PHMP caseworkers are instructed to emphasize the worst possible legal and licensing consequences if there is no cooperation. PNAP/PHMP caseworkers are instructed to intimidate and scare licensees into the program. PNAP caseworkers are instructed to tell licensees about the costs of the Mental and Physical Evaluation and court fees. PNAP caseworkers are instructed provide the minimum legal information possible.
PNAP caseworkers do not know the law. PNAP/PHMP/PAP case workers are not trained in the several health care boards' regulations. PHMP/PNAP/PAP case workers do not understand the legal implications of the wrong advice they give. PNAP case workers do not know how to tell the truth. Some PNAP caseworkers may be in the program too.
For every medical professional, agreeing to the initial PNAP assessment is the worst thing you can do. Current conflicts between the DSM-IV and DSM V alcohol use disorder - mild, moderate, or severe - are creating significant issues in determinations of impairment for PNAP assessors. I have learned that the PNAP assessors could be calling the PNAP caseworker and managers, who help the assessor diagnosis an impairment. This improper.
PNAP and PHMP assessments should be performed independently, by appropriately trained medical professionals. PNAP and PHMP supervisors (Simpson and Knipe) should not be consulted on diagnosis. This type of diagnosis cooperation smacks of a pre-ordained determination of an impairment to insure medical professionals go in the program. Please understand the above is not anecdote or a hypothetical scenario. I have been told about PNAP supervisors providing supplemental questions and facts to assessors to insure a determination of impairment and a conclusion that the monitoring program is required. Ethically, any assessor/PNAP consultation is improper.
This tells me that the system of initial communication with PNAP (in which they lie to you) and the read assessment process renders this entire program unacceptable. Be careful. Call me.