profession

Challenges to peer review confidentiality rising

Physician organizations say court rulings that release files could deter doctor participation in the process.

By — Posted May 28, 2012

Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin

Physicians historically have enjoyed state protections when discussing a colleague’s behavior or analyzing an adverse event in peer review committees. At least 45 states prevent disclosure of what is said during such meetings to facilitate open communication and foster better health care.

But a recent rise in legal challenges against peer review protections is putting doctors’ confidentiality — and the process itself — at risk, legal experts and physicians say. For example:

  • On May 17, a Maine judge ordered a hospital to release internal peer review files created during the evaluation of a patient’s treatment. The court said keeping the files private violates the defendant’s constitutional right to defend himself in a criminal trial. The case concerns the alleged killing of another man.
  • The Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in April that certain statements made by a vascular surgeon during a peer review hearing were subject to disclosure. An exception in state law exists for the discovery of comments made by a defendant during such meetings, the court said.
  • In January, a federal court in Massachusetts ordered a hospital to produce documents related to its residency program after a former surgical resident sued the hospital. The judge said federal interests in fighting employment discrimination preempt state law that protects the documents.
  • Physician organizations are following a case before the Illinois Appellate Court that threatens confidentiality protections under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The federal law encourages physicians, pharmacies and hospitals to report medical error information to patient safety organizations. The Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and the State Medical Societies, along with the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a joint court brief in support of Walgreens, which was sued by the Illinois Dept. of Financial and Professional Regulation for refusing to release reports of medication errors. Walgreens says the information was prepared as part of its patient safety evaluation system, which is privileged under the law.

Some courts, including those in Kentucky and Idaho, have upheld confidentiality protections in recent rulings. Yet there seems to be a shift among courts in how they are analyzing peer review cases, said Michael Moroney, a New Jersey health law attorney who represents physicians in state and federal cases.

“The climate has definitely changed,” he said. “The courts are taking a much closer look at individual documents. They’re being much more sensitive to the plaintiffs’ requests. It doesn’t mean all documents will be discoverable, but the climate is such that courts are at least entertaining it.”

Physicians worry that this change in courtroom dynamics could lead to hesitation among doctors to participate in peer review committees, thus impacting quality-of-care efforts. “It’s extremely alarming, because for three decades, we’ve had inviolate protections for peer review documents and discussions,” said Gordon Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Assn., referring to the May ruling in that state. “In any civil or administrative action, they’ve not been admitted.”

Courts that have allowed peer review files to be discoverable seem to follow one of two lines of reasoning. In some rulings, judges have cited the disclosure as appropriate because of conflicting state laws or overriding federal regulations. In other decisions, courts have said the documents are not privileged because of how or why they were created.

For instance, in 2011 a Pennsylvania court ruled that an incident report made by a hospital after a patient fell outside the facility was not protected. The patient had sued the hospital and doctors, claiming he had been released negligently from the emergency department after a vehicle crash.

The judge said the incident report could have been created for police or insurance purposes.

Health professionals must prove that a document was created solely for a peer review or quality improvement purpose to better defend its protection, said Michael Callahan, a Chicago attorney and vice chair of the Medical Staff Credentialing and Peer Review Practice Group for the American Health Lawyers Assn.

“The general view of courts is that everything is discoverable,” Callahan said. “If you are asserting a confidentiality statute, you really have to do a good job describing to the court why it’s protected.”

The rulings can have a ripple effect. A 2006 decision by the Rhode Island Supreme Court narrowed the definition of protected medical peer review, specifying that documents are protected only if they stem from formal proceedings about a specific instance of clinical service. Reviews related to a doctor’s bedside manner or communication skills are not subject to protection, the court said.

As a result, the Rhode Island Medical Society “has incurred substantial legal costs over the past several years fighting subpoenas from trial lawyers for peer review records,” said Newell E. Warde, PhD, executive director of the medical society. “We have been at an unfortunate disadvantage in these confrontations.”

The AMA’s policy position is that proceedings, records, findings and recommendations of a peer review organization are not subject to discovery. In medical liability actions, the privilege protects reviews of the defendant physician’s specific treatment of the plaintiff and extends to reviews of treatment the physician has provided to patients other than the plaintiff, the policy says.

Frustrated with court decisions, some are seeking legislative remedies. In South Carolina, doctors are supporting a Senate bill that would close a loophole in existing law that is allowing plaintiff attorneys to acquire peer review documents at trial, said Scott Hultstrand, director of legislative affairs for the South Carolina Medical Assn. A proposal in Colorado would broaden protection to share review information among health care organizations and protect peer evaluations of physician assistants, as well as doctors.

In 2011, Wisconsin enacted a tougher law to protect sharing of peer review information among related health entities and public health organizations.

Catherine J. Flynn, a New Jersey medical liability defense attorney, said the closer scrutiny by courts could prompt health professionals to re-evaluate their policies and procedures.

That “will cause a revisiting of the peer review process for hospitals and doctors to ensure that we’re doing the process the correct way and that we’re handling the documentation of that process in such a way that we can maximize the protections of those documents,” she said.

Back to top


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

How courts have ruled on peer review

In recent months, courts have allowed peer review-protected material into evidence. Among the rulings:

State of Maine v. Ernest Weidul: State of Maine Superior Court, ruling May 17

Ernest Weidul, who is charged with killing an acquaintance, requested peer review and sentinel event documents from the hospital that treated the alleged victim. Mercy Hospital argued the documents were privileged. A judge ordered the files disclosed, ruling that keeping them private would violate Weidul’s Sixth Amendment rights.

John Lamacchia v. Mark A. Schwartz, MD: Supreme Court of the State of New York, ruling April 3

A patient suing a doctor and hospital for medical negligence requested that the hospital produce protected files. The hospital requested a protective order over the documents. The judge denied the order, ruling that an exception exists under state law allowing disclosure of statements made by a defendant during a peer review meeting. The judge ordered a private review of the files to determine whether such statements were made (link).

West Florida Regional Medical Center v. Lynda See: Supreme Court of Florida, ruling Jan. 12

A plaintiff suing her doctors and a hospital for medical liability requested that the medical center disclose a blank form related to how doctors apply for staff privileges at the facility. The hospital said the form was protected under state laws ensuring confidentiality of medical peer review and credentialing records. The court concluded that the form should be released under an amendment to state law that says patients have the right to access records about past adverse medical events (link).

Debra Gargiulo v. Baystate Health Inc.: U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, ruling Jan. 4

A surgical resident suing her employer for discrimination requested documents regarding comparable participants in her medical residency program. The medical center said the documents were protected as part of the state’s peer review law. The judge said the federal interest in fighting discrimination preempts state law and ordered the hospital to produce the documents (link).

Back to top


External links

John Lamacchia v. Mark A. Schwartz, MD, Supreme Court of the State of New York, April 3 (link)

West Florida Regional Medical Center v. Lynda See, Supreme Court of Florida, Jan. 12 (link)

Debra Gargiulo v. Baystate Health Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Jan. 4 (link)

Back to top


ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISE HERE


Featured
Read story

Confronting bias against obese patients

Medical educators are starting to raise awareness about how weight-related stigma can impair patient-physician communication and the treatment of obesity. Read story


Read story

Goodbye

American Medical News is ceasing publication after 55 years of serving physicians by keeping them informed of their rapidly changing profession. Read story


Read story

Policing medical practice employees after work

Doctors can try to regulate staff actions outside the office, but they must watch what they try to stamp out and how they do it. Read story


Read story

Diabetes prevention: Set on a course for lifestyle change

The YMCA's evidence-based program is helping prediabetic patients eat right, get active and lose weight. Read story


Read story

Medicaid's muddled preventive care picture

The health system reform law promises no-cost coverage of a lengthy list of screenings and other prevention services, but some beneficiaries still might miss out. Read story


Read story

How to get tax breaks for your medical practice

Federal, state and local governments offer doctors incentives because practices are recognized as economic engines. But physicians must know how and where to find them. Read story


Read story

Advance pay ACOs: A down payment on Medicare's future

Accountable care organizations that pay doctors up-front bring practice improvements, but it's unclear yet if program actuaries will see a return on investment. Read story


Read story

Physician liability: Your team, your legal risk

When health care team members drop the ball, it's often doctors who end up in court. How can physicians improve such care and avoid risks? Read story