The Secretary of State selects, from those volunteering, two or three individuals to write a position paper in favor of a ballot question and a similar number of individuals to write an opposing position on the same ballot question. The deadline for volunteering to write in favor or in opposition to a ballot question was August 3rd. Selection of those writing a position was made on August 9th. Written arguments of the proponents and opponents of each ballot question are mailed to all registered voters before the early voting period of the general election.

Ballot Question 3

Ballot question 3 is the KODIN (Keep Our Doctors in Nevada) Initiative. Writing the proponents position are Jody Lowry, Esq., an attorney in Las Vegas, Carolyn Marshall of Henderson, a drug representative for Novartis, and Kathleen Hale of Minden. Writing in opposition to the KODIN Initiative is N. Patrick Flanagan, Esq., an attorney, Kathleen Jones, Esq., a former registered nurse and now full-time Las Vegas attorney, and Rayna Brachmann of Reno.

Ballot question 3 would change Nevada statutes (but not the Nevada Constitution) to closely approximate the MICRA laws of California. While California has many problems, the availability and affordability of medical professional liability insurance is not one of them. In fact, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) has provided stable medmal premiums since the implementation of the Act (see accompanying chart of medmal premiums in California compared to the average of all other states). KODIN adds elimination of Joint and Several Liability, which means that liability will be "fault based" - no more "deep pockets" for health care providers. KODIN also provides for a $350,000 non-economic damages (pain and suffering) limitation per injury as compared to the $250,000 limitation existing under MICRA.

The argument for ballot question 3 will be, in substance, as follows:

Physicians continue to leave Nevada, and medical malpractice insurers continue to pull out of the Nevada market at an alarming rate despite the medical malpractice litigation reforms passed by the Nevada legislature in 2002. Why? Because the 2002 legislation does not provide enough specific protection for doctors and their insurers from astronomical jury verdicts, making it impossible to plan for the challenges associated with practicing medicine. As a result, some Nevada doctors pay more than double for liability insurance compared to doctors in Los Angeles. (AMA press release, March 17, 2004). What does this mean to your doctors? They are having difficulty keeping their practices open. What does this mean to you? When you need a doctor, you may have difficulty finding one.

The Keep Our Doctors In Nevada (KODIN) initiative provides several protections to doctors, patients, and their insurers, while still allowing people who have genuinely been injured as a result of physician negligence to recover economic losses. First, KODIN ensures that a higher percentage of an award in a medical malpractice case goes to the injured person, not to attorneys. Second, KODIN provides that, if multiple health care providers are found at fault in a malpractice case, each provider is only responsible for payment of her own share of liability and can't be forced to pay anyone else's share. Third, KODIN stops "double-dipping" by informing juries if plaintiffs are receiving money from other sources for the same injury. Fourth, KODIN allows a health care provider who has been found negligent to make payments to the

injured plaintiff over a scheduled period of time instead of all at once. Finally, KODIN sets a $350,000 limit on the amount a medical malpractice plaintiff can recover for non-economic damages, like "pain and suffering." KODIN will help stabilize medical malpractice premiums-and help your doctor stay in Nevada.

According to the AMA, Nevada is among a dozen states facing a "full-blown medical liability crisis." KODIN will stabilize Nevada's health care crisis and provide protection for both doctors and patients.

If passed, this initiative will have no impact on the environment. There will be no fiscal impact on the state budget. The health, safety, and welfare of the public will be improved because physicians of all specialties will be more likely to stay in Nevada to practice medicine.

Source: www.ama-assn.org

Ballot Question 4

Ballot question 4 is the Insurance Rate Reduction Act Initiative which would modify the Nevada Constitution. To do so, this Initiative must pass in 2004 and again in 2006. For implications of the significance of passage of this Initiative please refer to the last issue of the CCMS' County Line. Past issues of the County Line can be viewed online at: www.clarkcountymedical.org

Writing in favor of this Initiative are Carmen Cashman of Las Vegas, and Kathleen Jones, Esq., of Las Vegas. Writing in opposition to the Insurance Rate Reduction Act are Dani Denton of Henderson, Scott Craigie, NSMA's lobbyist who is a resident of Reno, and Robert Erickson of Carson City.

The argument against ballot question 4 will be, in substance, as follows:

Question 4 will not lower insurance rates. The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled a similar insurance rollback was unconstitutional.

Even though insurance rates would not be reduced, one part of this amendment would continue to have constitutional authority. Buried deep inside Question 4 is language intended to wipe out reforms that were enacted to keep doctors in Nevada and protect our access to heath care.

The purpose of Question 4 is clearly spelled out in a Nevada Trial Lawyers Association letter dated March 8, 2004, which states they wrote this Initiative, "…building a constitutional wall against (Question 3's medical malpractice reforms for) this election…"

This is a deceptive trick by personal injury lawyers. They know voters would not knowingly prohibit reforms to limit frivolous lawsuits, so the lawyers stuck that provision into this "insurance" question.

It wasn't that long ago when trauma centers closed and doctors were leaving Nevada. Emergency services were cut. Women's health was compromised by an exodus of OB-GYN specialists.

High malpractice insurance costs mean higher healthcare costs for everyone. Employers are forced to increase out-of-pocket costs that their employees pay, while some drop coverage altogether. Insurance for those who pay for it themselves becomes unaffordable.

That's what we can expect if the reforms passed by the legislature are repealed.

Question 4 also creates a huge new state bureaucracy. Insurance companies are supposed to pay fees to support the new bureaucrats, but nothing in Question 4 prevents them from passing on those costs to consumers. California passed a similar regulatory scheme and the size of its Department of Insurance grew over 500 percent. The last thing Nevada needs is more bureaucrats!

It is wrong to clutter Nevada's Constitution with a hodge-podge of provisions such as these. At 2,354 words, Question 4 is the longest constitutional amendment in Nevada history. It has not been subject to thorough public debate and scrutiny in the way that most laws are.

Any mistakes or unintended consequences of Question 4 will be locked into our constitution where not even the governor or legislature can fix them.

Insurance reform is not the real objective of the personal injury lawyers backing Question 4. Killing common sense legal reform is their objective. Stop personal injury lawyers from using the Nevada Constitution to line their own pockets at the expense of Nevada consumers. Vote NO on Question 4.

Ballot Question 5

Ballot question 5 is the Stop Frivolous Lawsuits and Protect Your Rights Act. This is also a constitutional amendment which would require passage by the voters in 2004 and again in 2006. Success of this Initiative would constitutionally cap medical tort reform damages at those of A.B. 1 of the 2002 Special Session (current caps in Nevada) but would permit the legislature to raise the damages dollar limitations or eliminate them altogether (so that there would be no medical tort reform damages limitations in Nevada). Writing in favor of this Initiative are Carmen Cashman of Las Vegas, Peggy Pound of Las Vegas, and Kathleen Jones, Esq., of Las Vegas. Writing in opposition to the Initiative are Jim Denton of Henderson, Larry Matheis of “Reno” (according the Secretary of State's records), and Christina Dugan of Las Vegas.

The written argument opposing ballot question 5 will be, in substance:

Nearly one-half of the money awarded in lawsuits goes to pay lawyers and legal expenses. Question 5 locks this unfair practice into the Nevada constitution, preventing the legislature from ever limiting excessive attorneys' fees or court awards. Personal injury lawyers win. Consumers lose.

Do personal injury attorneys really expect voters to believe they paid to put Question 5 on the ballot because it will limit frivolous lawsuits?

Question 5 does exactly the opposite. It encourages frivolous lawsuits because it adds a provision to the constitution that only cases determined to be 100% frivolous are subject to sanctions. A lawyer cannot be sanctioned for filing a lawsuit that is only 95% frivolous.

Isn't it just like the personal injury lawyers to write something that does the opposite of what they claim?

Here are the facts about Question 5:

Legal fees and jury awards have driven the cost of malpractice insurance in Nevada to among the highest in the nation. As a result, doctors have left the state, and Nevada ranks near the bottom nationally in number of doctors per resident. This shortage will grow as our population grows. With fewer healthcare providers, people cannot get medical treatment they need.

Higher medical malpractice costs mean higher healthcare costs for everyone. Fewer employers will be able to provide healthcare coverage to their employees; out-of-pocket costs for employees increase; fewer people will be able to afford coverage for themselves.

What's the real reason personal injury attorneys put Question 5 on the ballot? In 2002, the state legislature capped the fees that attorneys can collect in medical malpractice cases. To make certain their hefty fees are never limited, personal injury lawyers qualified Question 5 for the ballot.

Question 5 also prohibits judges from reducing grossly inflated jury awards or attorneys' fees. Remember the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling coffee in her lap? If Question 5 becomes part of our constitution, there would be nothing a judge could do to reduce outrageous awards or excessive attorneys' fees. If Question 5 becomes part of our constitution, lawyers can walk away with more money than the person for whom the award was intended.

Lawsuits already cost each and every Nevadan $809 per year. Question 5 will result in fewer doctors, higher healthcare costs, less access to healthcare, more lawsuits and higher attorney fees. It has no place in the Nevada Constitution. Vote NO on Question 5.

For most voters, the only information they will receive regarding the merits, or lack of merits, of any particular ballot question will be these written materials. Health care providers should be aware of the importance of passing ballot question 3, and should be able to articulate to others why ballot questions 4 and 5 should receive a "no" vote. (The text of fact sheets on Ballot Questions 4 and 5 from www.no4and5.org follows.)

Facts About Question 4

Personal injury lawyers want voters to believe Question 4 will reduce insurance rates. In fact, this is a cynical attempt to manipulate voters into unwittingly undoing medical malpractice reforms that are needed to keep doctors practicing in Nevada.

ü Fact: Question 4 contains a "poison pill" buried deep within that seeks to void Nevada's medical malpractice reforms designed to help doctors and hospitals be able to continue providing services in our state.

ü Fact: Question 4 offers voters the false promise of rate reduction without reducing the cost of any of the things insurance pays for. This is voodoo economics at its worst.

ü Fact: Nevada already requires the Insurance Commissioner to review rates to ensure they are fair and reflect the actual cost of providing insurance. By mandating an artificial reduction of rates, the trial lawyers want people to believe they will get a free lunch.

ü Fact: While claiming to reduce auto insurance rates for drivers, the measure may actually result in higher rates since it guarantees insurance companies a rate of return to be determined after the measure is enacted.

ü Fact: Under Question 4, a driver could have a dozen at fault property damage accidents and an insurer would not only be prohibited from canceling that drivers' coverage, the person would be entitled to a good driver discount.

ü Fact: California adopted a regulatory scheme similar to this measure that has cost consumers, ratepayers and taxpayers billions of dollars in higher rates, litigation expenses and regulatory expenses.

ü Fact: After adopting this type of regulatory scheme, the budget and size of California's Department of Insurance quadrupled. Insurers are assessed nearly $170 million annually to fund the bureaucrats who operate the department, money that is ultimately paid by every insurance consumer in the state. The California CDI budget is up by $27 million (19%) in just the last four years -- during a severe budget crisis.

ü Fact: The trend in insurance regulation across the country is to modernize regulations to increase competition and choice for consumers. Question 4 will encourage insurers to leave Nevada, meaning consumers will have less competition and fewer choices.

ü Fact: These rate "rollbacks" will force many carriers to reevaluate whether they can continue selling insurance in Nevada. This will result in less competition, less spreading of risk, and consequently, higher insurance rates. This will increase the operating costs of business in the state.

Facts About Question 5

Nevada personal injury lawyers are trying to trick voters into believing they want to stop frivolous lawsuits. They must think voters are fools! A reading of Question 5, the personal injury lawyers' measure, shows that its real purpose is to prohibit any limitations on personal injury attorney fees or court awards and encourage even more frivolous lawsuits.

ü Fact: The lawyers' provision to "stop frivolous lawsuits" is toothless. It allows a judge to sanction a lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit or motion only if the judge finds the lawyer's action to be "solely" to harass the opposing party or seek economic gain unrelated to the merits. If a lawsuit is 99% frivolous, the lawyer cannot be sanctioned under this initiative. Further, because it applies to both prosecuting and defending an action, this measure is more likely to be used as a club against defense attorneys who vigorously battle against frivolous lawsuits.

ü Fact: The real purpose of Question 5 is to protect the pocketbooks of personal injury lawyers so they never have their fees limited or have excessive awards (like the McDonalds coffee case) reduced.

ü Fact: Question 5 prohibits the legislature from ever passing limitations on skyrocketing jury awards that drive up prices for everyone, damage local municipalities and drive companies out of state.

ü Fact: The legislature could never enact laws to cap punitive damages, require that they go to the state or even that they bear a relationship to the harm that was caused.

ü Fact: Similarly, the legislature could never extend existing limitations on damages in medical malpractice cases to other types of cases.

ü Fact: Question 5 also prohibits the legislature from enacting laws to limit how much money lawyers extract from lawsuits or require that they fully disclose their fees and tell clients specifically how much time they actually worked on the case.

ü Fact: Judges would also be prohibited from reducing an attorney's fee even if it was grossly inflated or shocked the conscience of the judge.

ü Fact: Question 5 would remove a judge's discretion to reduce an outrageous jury verdict that is not supported by the evidence.

ü Fact: Judges would lose their ability to order new trials when a jury reaches a verdict that is not supported by the evidence.

Source: http://www.no4and5.org/

Top

Clark County District Court Medical Malpractice Filings Against Health Care Providers, Jan 2001 - Jul 2004

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan 39 33 109 50

Feb 20 14 88 68

Mar 35 30 148 104

Apr 37 34 101 74

May 37 35 108 48

Jun 27 24 98 77

Jul 19 100 97 35

Aug 54 51 63

Sep 20 65 85

Oct 37 83 114

Nov 38 184 50

Dec 9 170 55

Sum 372 823 1116

Top

President’s Message

By Michael P Colletti, M.D., 2004-2005 CCMS President

The summer is nearly over. In the last month, MEDPAC met twice to interview candidates for the Nevada State Assembly and Senate. We endorsed and financially supported several and will make further endorsements and contributions after the upcoming primary elections. The interviewing processing is very interesting and informative. The candidates greatly differ in their backgrounds and reasons for seeking office. There is also wide variability in their knowledge and interest in the current health care battles and physician frustrations in Clark County. Many of them, particularly assembly democrats, vote strictly along partisan lines. Part of our job is going to encourage them to think for themselves and put the health care of the people of Nevada ahead of their own personal and party interests.

We sent out our "fax broadcast" to all the doctors and offices available to us last month regarding distributing literature about Question # 3 (KODIN). The response was very good as several offices requested packets of information to provide to their patients. Patients/voters are very interested in improving the quality of their medical care and they certainly don't want to see it continue to erode as it has done in the last few years. They know some of their physicians have already left Nevada and others are preparing to do so. They don't want to lose their physicians. Senior citizens are particularly aware and usually very committed to voting for the issues they support.

We are continuing to work on the nursing shortage and are active in the Southern Nevada Medical Industry Coalition (SNMIC). The quality and quantity of nursing student applicants has greatly increased. The next "bottleneck" in the education process is finding enough nursing teachers. Our committee meets again on August 9th.

Top

New Members - July 2004

Congratulations and Welcome to the Clark County Medical Society

· Saul Ruben, MD, Diagnostic Radiology, 2950 S Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89109

· Anthony P Shaya, MD, Ob-Gyn, 10170 S Eastern Ave #160, Henderson, NV 89052

Reinstated Members

· James Barber, MD, Gynecology, 10170 S Eastern Ave #160, Henderson, NV 89052

· John G Martinez, MD, General Surgery, 2040 W Charleston Blvd #400, Las Vegas, NV 89102

· Michael D Schlachter, MD, Internal Medicine, 653 N Town Center Dr #202, Las Vegas, NV 89144

Status Changes

· David Charles, MD, Pediatrics - Retired

· David J Christensen, MD, Internal Med. - Retired

· Dennis Gordon, MD, Orthopaedics - Active Ltd.

CORRECTION: The August County Line included an incorrect address for Dr. Robert C Gutierrez, MD. His correct address is 5380 S Rainbow Blvd #100, Las Vegas, NV 89118.

Top

Applicants To Go Before Credentialing Committee

If you have any pertinent information about the following membership candidates, please contact:

Clark County Medical Society, 2590 E. Russell Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89120

· Allister D Arnold, MD, Diagnostic Radiology

· Jonathan W Bold, MD, Diagnostic Radiology

· Constantine N Chienku, MD, Pediatrics

· Paul M Derber, MD, Internal Medicine

· Galen B Hewell, MD, Diagnostic Radiology

· Quynh V Nguyen, MD, Cardiovascular Surgery

· David J Oliveri, MD, Physical Medicine/Rehabilitation

· Christopher Rhee, MD, Pediatric Gastroenterology

· Michael G Scheidler, MD, Pediatric Surgery

· Sanford F White, MD, Family Practice

For information on becoming a member of the Clark County Medical Society, call Marlaina Burns at 739-9989

Top

Confidential Morbidity Report Form Released

By Donald S. Kwalick, MD, MPH

Clark County Health Officer

Clark County Health District, Washoe County Health District and Nevada State Health Division representatives held a series of meetings to develop a new "Confidential Morbidity Report Form." This comprehensive form will help to ensure consistent reporting statewide and aid our efforts to track and investigate communicable diseases in our community.

The cooperation and participation of health care providers is essential to this endeavor. If you have questions or comments regarding the new form, please contact our Office of Epidemiology at 759-1300.

(A copy of this form follows on page 14.)

Top

Greetings from the Alliance

By Marian Haas and Kathie Slaughter, CCMS Alliance Co-Presidents

We invite all members and interested potential members to join us for some great activities. First, there will be a Newcomer’s Brunch in which anyone new to the community or just new to our organization is invited to attend. You can meet our board members and other newcomers in an informal casual setting. We will have information there about the Alliance and the projects and programs we are planning. This will be on Thursday, September 9, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the home of Marian Haas, 2110 Homeview Court, Las Vegas, NV 89117. Please call for directions, 838-9840.

You are also invited to our first luncheon, which will be held on Tuesday, September 21, at 11:30, in Lawry’s The Prime Rib Restaurant on 4043 Howard Hughes Parkway. This will be our first membership meeting for the fall and will be a "get reacquainted" time for all our members and a great opportunity for new members to meet more of the group. We hope for a great turnout.

Then please join us for a wonderful year of activities. Our luncheons will be held on the third Tuesday of the month. There will also be meetings of many small interest groups, such as Book Club, Mommy and Me Playgroup, and others we hope to form. We will be supporting Child Focus and the CASA Foundation, charities in the community that provide assistance for foster children, through our two major fundraisers, the Greeting Card Project in the fall and the Fashion Show in the spring.

We are looking forward to seeing old friends and making new ones. If you wish to join us, please contact Wendy Agrawal @ 228-6360, Swati Khamamkar @242-8542, Marian Haas @838-9840, or Kathie Slaughter @ 878-4981. You may also get information from the Clark County Medical Society @ 739-9989.

Top

Minutes Synopsis

Clark County Medical Society Executive Council Meeting

Tuesday, July 20, 2004; 6:00 P.M.

(Members can receive a full copy of meeting minutes by calling 739-9989.)

The minutes from the meeting on June 15, 2004 were approved.

Dr. Steinberg reported the end of the fiscal year financial report. The revenue received for the entire fiscal year exceeded the budgeted revenue. The expenses were slightly higher than the expenses last year. The financial report was approved unanimously.

In Dr. Cohler's absence, Marlaina Burns announced the reinstatements of the following members: Robert C. Gutierrez, MD; Mark L. Winkler, MD; David G. Browne, MD; and Lisa D. Gamino, MD. The following applicants were approved for active membership: Saul Ruben, MD, Diagnostic Radiology, and Anthony P. Shaya, MD, Ob-Gyn.

Marlaina stated the active paid members at this time was 755, which does not include the dues exempt members. She also reported 23 had been resigned for non-payment of dues, compared to 103 resigned in 2003. Dr. Colletti revised the letter for those 23 members, asking them to remit their dues and remain current. Dr. Lenhart stated he will work with Marlaina Burns in soliciting new membership from those UNSOM residents and full-time faculty physicians who are not currently CCMS members.

Alliance Report

Kathie Slaughter stated Annette Mohs, the Legislative Chairperson for the State and County Alliance, was in favor of a legislative dinner in October with Dr. Donald Palmisano being the featured speaker. Mrs. Slaughter stated the Alliance would support but not co-sponsor the event due to their accountant's advice.

County Health District Report

Dr. Kwalick was unable to attend but sent a report.

UNSOM Report

Dr. Lenhart introduced the new Dean of the Nevada School of Medicine, Dr. John McDonald.

NSMA Report

Dr. Evins stated the First Health computer crossover with Medicare is in such a mess that CMS has decided not to do anything with it until after October 1. He also reported that the AMA pledged to give NSMA $100,000 to help with the Initiatives with the condition that NSMA attempt to increase AMA membership by 25%.

AMA Report

Dr. Lynn Horne was unable to attend but sent a report.

MedPac

Dr. Steinberg stated eleven candidates were interviewed the previous night by 7 MedPac Directors. MedPac members were encouraged to participate in future interviews.

KODIN Update

Dr. Kingsley stated physicians who are considered to be leaders in their respective specialties are being asked to give money to KODIN. Dr. Colletti directed staff to fax broadcast a message to all of the fax numbers reminding physicians to call for "Vote Yes on 3" kits.

President's Report

Dr. Colletti sought and received approval of the list of committee members and their chairs for the year.

Administrative Report

Dr. Havins attended a hearing in Carson City on behalf of the Nevada State Medical Association. He stated the judge ordered the Secretary of State, Dean Heller, to certify the two initiatives he previously disqualified: the minimum wage petition and the stop frivolous lawsuits petition. Both petitions will be on the November ballot.

Dr. Kingsley moved to have CCMS write a letter of support to name a public school in honor of Dr. Otto Ravenholt. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The board voted to decline the offer of accepting the credentialing files from the Nevada Medical Credentialing Service, which is going out of business.

Dr. Malcolm Poon requested another year of "Leave of Absence" membership status because he is going back and forth between here and Beijing, China to teach. This request was approved.

Dr. Evins asked the Board to consider NSMA's request for CCMS to sponsor a debate between Senator Ray Rawson and Assemblyman Bob Beers. The Board decided against sponsoring a debate.

The next Executive Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday night, August 17, 2004 at 6:00pm.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35pm.

Top

Classifieds

· MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE: 2615 s.f., 5 Exam Rooms, 2 Restrooms, 2 Offices, X-ray Room, File Storage, Lunch Room, Open Area. Dino Plaza (Flamingo & Pecos), 5 min. from Desert Springs Hospital. Easy access to I-95. Call 454-9240 for Special Lease Rate.

· MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE FOR LEASE located at Pecos and Tropicana in Pecos Office Building. 3 exam rooms, procedure room, 2 Drs. Offices, reception office, nurses station, break room and storage. 2,850 sq. ft. Please contact Sandie at (702) 870-0058.

· OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SUBLET: Monday, Wednesday Afternoon, and/or all day Friday, Saturday. Central location, Sunrise campus. Ideal but not limited to Primary Care Physician. 702-796-7000.

· FOR LEASE: 2809 W. Charleston Blvd., 3,400 sq. ft. (+/-), one story, ample parking, close to UMC & Valley hospitals. Also for lease 5,000 sq. ft. Ft. Apache/Russell area near new Southern Hills Hosp. Please call either 804-4736 or cell # 232-3344.

· PHYSICIAN(S) WANTED TO SHARE OFFICE Space on E Flamingo in Desert Springs Hospital-area. Please call 734-2242 for details.

· FULL TIME PHYSICIAN WANTED. Nevada license and DEA required. No nights, weekends, emergencies. Family Practice/Personal Injury. Good Benefits. All responses confidential. Please fax CV to (702) 795-4479.

Top

CME Calendar

Cardiovascular Consultants 691-9154

Clark County Medical Society 739-9989

9/11 - “Management of Acute Pain in Patients Susceptible to Drug Dependence,” 9 a.m., 2 CME hours

9/29 - “Artificial Reproductive Technology: Ethical Issues and the Law,” 6 p.m., 2 Ethics CME hours

10/2* - “Hospice and Palliative Medicine- What is it?” 9 a.m., 2 Ethics CME hours (*new date*)

10/13 - “Current Trends in Cosmetic Surgery and Other Cosmetic Procedures,” 6 p.m., 2 CME hours

HealthInsight (801) 892-0155

Rios Associates (520) 907-3318

9/10-13 - “Intensive Conversational Medical Spanish - Culture,” 43 CME hours

St. Rose Hospital 616-5832

Southwest Medical Associates 242-7735

9/9 - “Tuberculosis Update,” 7:30 a.m., 1 CME hour

10/14 - “Rheumatology Update,” 7:30 a.m., 1 CME hour

Summerlin Hospital 233-7572

Sunrise Hospital 731-8210

UMC 383-2604

Valley Hospital 388-4847

9/14 - “General Care of the Congestive Heart Failure Patient,” noon

9/28 - “Diagnosis of Abdominal Pain in the Office Setting,” noon

Contents

BALLOT QUESTION ARGUMENTS: Yes on 3, No on 4, No on 5