Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Prescribing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas board reprimands Dr. Jeffrey Summerhill, orders monitoring and MME reductions for prescribing deficiencies
Summary
After stipulating to allegations about prescribing and recordkeeping, Dr. Jeffrey Summerhill received a formal reprimand and a multi-year monitoring plan from the Arkansas State Medical Board: reduce total MMEs for patients to 50 or less within six months, quarterly chart reviews over 36 months, periodic board appearances and payment of investigation costs.
The Arkansas State Medical Board issued a formal reprimand and a multi-year monitoring plan for Dr. Jeffrey Allen Summerhill after he stipulated to allegations that the board found showed deficient opioid prescribing and incomplete documentation.
Dr. Summerhill told the board he reviewed the board packet, sought outside evaluation from an expert (Dr. Danny Silver) and has completed continuing medical education and remedial practice review. He told members he has reworked office procedures and committed to more consistent pill counts and urine drug testing.
At the hearing the physician acknowledged past board actions and prior discipline, and agreed that other parts of the record supported the board’s concerns about documentation and monitoring. The board discussed options that ranged from suspension to revocation, and ultimately voted unanimously to issue a reprimand and a written board order with conditions.
Under the order the board recorded these principal elements: reduce patients’ morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) to 50 or below within six months; every six months for 36 months the board’s investigator will pull five charts for review (and the board may require additional chart reviews on short notice); Dr. Summerhill will appear before the board at six and 12 months; and he must pay the current investigation costs of $3,634.25 within one year. The board reserved authority to reopen enforcement if benchmarks are not met.
Board members said they were persuaded by the physician’s willingness to follow a structured plan and by the documented remediation steps he already took, but emphasized tight oversight and clear benchmarks as the reason for the reprimand rather than a longer suspension or revocation.
The board directed staff to draft the order and notify the respondent of appeal rights. The reprimand and monitoring conditions are intended to address patient-safety risk arising from inconsistent documentation and opioid management practices the board identified.
