The Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy published an article this past spring that does a pretty good job of articulating the various concerns with the current scheme of state and federal peer review immunities, along with the state peer review and confidentiality laws that exist typically in each state. The article’s main premise is “As a result of these protections, the current peer review system produces both improper severity and improper leniency.” I could not agree more. But its conclusion that a “public process that is open to review and open to challenge by all interested parties will better promote health-care quality” creates a myriad of other problems. The most substantive is the argument that peer review activities would essentially disappear if they were allowed to be discovered and used by plaintiff’s malpractice attorney in court. Moreover, could such a drastic overhaul to the nation’s entire peer review architecture ever be achieved? Well, at least a dialogue is starting. . .
11 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol’y 1
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
HOSPITAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: ARE PEER REVIEW IMMUNITY, PRIVILEGE, AND CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
Copyright © 2016 Northwestern University School of Law, Michael D. Benson, MD, FACOG, Jordan B. Benson, CPA, JD, Mark S. Stein, JD, PhD