Criminal background checks would be mandated and formal complaints against physicians would be made public under proposals adopted Tuesday by the state Board of Medical Examiners.

"We're a regulatory agency that is committed to protecting the public interest, not the profession," said Dr. Louis Costa, a Charleston surgeon and the board's vice president.

The 31-page Medical Practices Act must be approved by the General Assembly and Gov. Mark Sanford, which could take a year or so.

Despite Costa's comment, the board made several changes to the proposal Tuesday in an effort to allay physicians' concerns that the proposed regulations went too far.

Last month, the South Carolina Medical Association sent the board a list of 14 concerns about the proposal, including four described as "major," and indicated it would take them to the state Legislature.

Physicians were especially concerned that portions of the law would make certain information public before they had a chance to defend themselves.

Todd Atwater, the association's chief executive, would not comment on the details of the proposal, but he said many of the doctors' concerns were addressed.

The Medical Practices Act governs how the board oversees state physicians. The board has been working on updating the act since at least 1995.Rick Wilson, staff attorney for the board, said that the board now has to find a legislator to sponsor the bill. He said the Legislature likely will not hear the proposal until the second half of the current session, next year.

While officials say they have long been working on an update to the act, the proposal comes amid some high-profile problems with doctors.

They include Dr. James Shortt, a West Columbia alternative medicine physician who is under criminal investigation after the death of one of his patients, a Wisconsin woman suffering from multiple sclerosis. Authorities say Shortt apparently treated the woman with hydrogen peroxide, typically used as an antiseptic or to bleach hair.

The board tried temporarily suspending his license last year, but Shortt appealed to the Administrative Law Court and won. Shortt's license appears on the board's Web site as active.

Costa said issues such as this have come up about a half-dozen times in the last decade, but he added that the Shortt case added urgency to the situation. "It was pivotal," he said.

The new act will allow the board to reveal when it has formally charged a doctor with a license violation. Current law makes that information public only when a decision has been made.

The board originally wanted to make it public whenever a doctor was under investigation, but it changed the proposal Tuesday in a compromise with doctors who worried that the proposal would publicize frivolous complaints.

"We get a lot of pretty specious complaints against doctors: Their hands are cold, staff is rude," Wilson said.

The Shortt case also was cited as a reason for another proposal, which would prevent doctors from appealing to the Administrative Law Court if the medical board ordered them to face a competency hearing.

Again, doctors complained, saying that the provision would rob them of their right to have their case heard before an independent body. The board on Tuesday voted to reinstate the appeal process, but the new proposal gives the court five days to make a decision.

Costa said the new version will speed up appeals. Current law has no time limit, and in many cases it takes weeks before a judge makes a decision.

"We feel good about it," Costa said. "I think the formula we've come up with is a balanced one."

DISCIPLINING DOCTORS

Here are some of the major changes proposed to the Medical Practices Act:

-- Criminal background checks. The proposal would require doctors applying for a license or being disciplined to submit to a criminal background check, though having a crime on record doesn't necessarily mean a license would be denied.

-- Expert witnesses. Doctors from outside the state who come here to testify in a court proceeding would be required to get a special temporary license. The license could be used only for that one case.

-- Public information. The act would allow the board to reveal publicly when a doctor has been formally charged with a violation of his or her license. Current law makes that information public only after a decision is made.

-- Speedy review. The Administrative Law Court would have five days to decide on appeals of demands by the board that a doctor be evaluated for competency or drug or alcohol abuse.

-- Public members. The act would add one non-physician to the board. It also would add 12 non-doctors to the Medical Disciplinary Commission, which reviews formal complaints against doctors.

---