Should an interventional cardiologist go to jail for stenting healthy patients – even when he stented a lower percentage of patients than his peers? Yes, according to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
In late April, a three-judge panel rejected Dr. John McLean’s claim that evidence used to convict him was insufficient, according to the CBS affiliate in Baltimore.
 
McLean, a former interventional cardiologist in Maryland, was convicted in 2011 of health care fraud and making false statements in connection with health care services. McLean was found guilty of performing inappropriate stent procedures in arteries with no significant blockage. He was sentenced to eight years and ordered to pay $579,070 in restitution to Medicare and other health insurance programs.
 
But on appeal, McLean argued that a “peer comparison” submitted by the government showed he had actually stented only 16 out of 100 patients, a rate 67 percent lower than the average of other interventional cardiologists.
 
In a brief commentary from the Association of Corporate Counsel, John Staige Davis V notes what the ruling could mean for other physicians:
“Even if a demonstrably competent physician provides medically necessary services to his patients in a clear majority of cases, and even if the physician employs a challenged elective service less frequently than his peers, he still can receive a lengthy prison sentence for performing and billing for medically unnecessary procedures.”
 
Now McLean’s case was also muddled by fraudulent patient records and his attempt – which FBI agents interrupted – to shred records subpoenaed by the government for the initial case. Though McLean argued that the specific papers he was shredding were immaterial to the case.