Mark D. Abruzzo, J.D.

Mark D. Abruzzo, J.D.

The development of peer review is linked to the development of hospitals and the increasing responsibility assigned to hospitals for the quality of care rendered by physicians on the hospital medical staff. Its roots have expanded with the onset of managed care. Peer review now is an important tool in all segments of the health care industry for not just the improvement of quality, but for the reduction of health care costs and protection from liability as well.

In an effort to encourage peer review, federal and state legislatures have acted. Most states have statutes that accord protection in the form of immunity and confidentiality. The exact nature of the protection, to whom it applies, and the conferring of immunity on those individuals who participate in the peer review process, all depend on the terms of the individual statute and the case law of the jurisdiction.

The federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 provides immunity from antitrust liability for hospitals, health care entities, and those individuals who participate in a peer review process that meets the due process safeguards of the act.

Keystone decision

In Pennsylvania, peer review protection took a hit on Oct. 1 when the state Supreme Court ruled that physician peer review at hospitals cannot always be kept confidential. This decision puts Pennsylvania in the middle of the national trend in which state courts have narrowed the confidentiality protections of the peer review process.

In this case, the court unanimously allowed a surgeon access to an audiotape of a hospital board meeting held for the purpose of approving a peer review panel's recommendation. The panel was deliberating the physician's conduct during surgery that allegedly went awry, resulting in the summary suspension of his privileges. Like many state statutes, Pennsylvania's law prohibits disclosure of peer review proceedings in civil lawsuits seeking damages for medical mishaps — usually the focus of a peer review panel hearing.

The deciding factor was the court's determination that the physician's challenge to his review did not concern his performance as a doctor but, instead, whether the process was carried out in a fair manner. The physician challenged the peer review determination as unlawfully and improperly accomplished through coercion condoned and promoted by the hospital.

The physician believed, and therefore proclaimed, that evidence of this coercion (and, hence, unmitigated subversion of his minimum due-process rights) existed on the tape used to record the board meeting. The physician maintained that at the meeting it was revealed that two physicians largely responsible for the physician's suspension acted with ulterior motives.

Since the physician's concern was not the underlying medical matter that led to his suspension, but rather the fairness and integrity of the board's review of that suspension, the court found that the confidentiality statute did not apply. It noted that the statute was not intended to apply to those "rare" instances where the process is misused.

This ruling, viewed by many as the most important health care decision rendered in Pennsylvania in many years, has rocked the state's medical industry. There is both criticism and support for the court's decision. The lawyer for the physician, not surprisingly, applauded the decision, noting that it would ensure that peer review is not a "star chamber" proceeding that leaves a physician unable to confront his accusers or even learn the nature of the accusation.

Perhaps a tad more objective position, however, was voiced by William H. Mahood, M.D., who serves on the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association. Mahood was quoted by the Philadelphia Inquirer as having said that the decision "strengthens" the peer review process. He believes that doctors who misuse peer review and act in bad faith should be sued.

Procedural integrity

An adverse peer review decision can have significant ramifications for the physician in question including, but not limited to, a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank and revocation of hospital privileges. As a consequence, maintaining the integrity of due process is crucial.

Even so, some experts believe that the integrity of due process may have been compromised in light of the decision. Lee McCormick, M.D., past president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, was quoted by the Inquirer as saying that for the peer review process to work, it has to be confidential. Otherwise, in a small hospital, he noted, patient referrals can influence the outcome of a review.

A leading legal expert in the health care industry believes that this decision will "chill" peer review. Most hospital peer review panels are voluntary, with doctors participating on a rotating basis. The court's decision therefore may very well have a negative impact on peer review.

Courts have striven, and always will strive, to protect due process. The problem is that, even in instances where due process is challenged, the discovery of peer review can have a more widespread effect.

For example, in this particular case, although the court's ruling applies only to the physician's legal challenge to his own peer review, it may lead to a civil suit against the hospital. The physician's lawyer said that his client planned to sue the hospital and certain doctors for breach of contract and defamation.

Based on the court's opinion, he seems confident that his client will be permitted to use the tape recording as evidence in such a suit. This would give rise to McCormick's concern that the peer review process would be dramatically inhibited as a result.

Regardless, the court's decision is correct — at least from our perspective. While we disagree with the characterization of peer review as a star chamber, the potential for abuse cannot be denied. The erosion of peer review protection is warranted insofar as it is necessary to maintain the integrity of a process that is designed to protect all participants.

Court holdings like this one should not spell the beginning of the end for peer review. Instead, they should motivate hospitals, managed care organizations, and physicians to implement safeguards designed to improve the process.

Mark D. Abruzzo, J.D., specializes in health care law at the Berwyn, Pa.-based law firm of Wade, Goldstein, Landau & Abruzzo, P.C.

Send your comments and questions regarding legal topics to:

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.