POPULAR
Power
Over
Poverty
Under
Laws of
America
Restored
Over
Poverty
Under
Laws of
America
Restored
| Copyright 2009 - POPULAR, Inc. - All Rights Reserved |
| AS OF DATE: 2009 SIGNATURE TOTAL: (TBA) Co-SPONSORS: Bill of Attainder Project Change Of Venue Citizens' Forum On Judicial Accountability CONCOP Concerned Citizens of Petersburg Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement Doctors for Open Government Ethics In Government Group Focus On Indiana Campaign Georgians for Open Government Health Integrity Project Larry Poliner, MD Midwest Center for Constitutional Rights Minnesota Court Reform National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. Project Vote Count Redstone Area Minority Employees Association (RAMEA) Texas State Client Council, Abilene Division The 357 Commission The ACORN 8 The New Grady Coalition The Truth About America The Truth About Minnesota Virginia Times |
| Co-SPONSORS cont: The Voice of the Republic We Speak Up Campaign You Can Count On Me Network |
| To Go To Our Referendum Petition Click Here |
HCQIA Referendum continued:
Background
“Medical Peer Review” is a process for evaluating the professional
work of physicians. It began as part of various efforts to weed incompetent
doctors from the medical profession. Congress strengthened that oversight in
1985 by enacting the “Health Care Quality Improvement Act” known as
HCQIA (pronounced Hick Wah). Because of HCQIA, doctors evaluating
colleagues through adequate peer review mechanisms cannot have any
judgment for money entered against them based on damages their
participation in the process arguably caused.
The Paradox Threatening Quality Patient Care
A congressional committee report on HCQIA explains:
However, HCQIA is sometimes used, “not to improve the quality of medical care,
but to leave a doctor who was unfairly treated without any viable remedy.”**
Background
“Medical Peer Review” is a process for evaluating the professional
work of physicians. It began as part of various efforts to weed incompetent
doctors from the medical profession. Congress strengthened that oversight in
1985 by enacting the “Health Care Quality Improvement Act” known as
HCQIA (pronounced Hick Wah). Because of HCQIA, doctors evaluating
colleagues through adequate peer review mechanisms cannot have any
judgment for money entered against them based on damages their
participation in the process arguably caused.
The Paradox Threatening Quality Patient Care
A congressional committee report on HCQIA explains:
- “(T)here is a clear need to do something to provide protection for doctors
engaging in peer review if this reporting system is to be workable. To that
end, the bill provides limited, but essential, immunity. Doctors and
hospitals who have acted in accordance with the reasonable belief, due
process, and other requirements of the bill are protected from damages
sought by a disciplined doctor. . .*
However, HCQIA is sometimes used, “not to improve the quality of medical care,
but to leave a doctor who was unfairly treated without any viable remedy.”**
Referenced Sources:
*H.R. REP. 99-903, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6384;
**See, Meyer –vs- Sunrise Hospital, 22 P.3d
1142 (Nev. 2001);
***Charles I. Artz, Swinging Pendulum of
Peer Review Immunity, Physicians’ News
Digest, (Nov. 2001);
****See, Poliner, et al.-vs- THS, et al., Appeal
No. 06-11235 before the U. S. Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
*H.R. REP. 99-903, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6384;
**See, Meyer –vs- Sunrise Hospital, 22 P.3d
1142 (Nev. 2001);
***Charles I. Artz, Swinging Pendulum of
Peer Review Immunity, Physicians’ News
Digest, (Nov. 2001);
****See, Poliner, et al.-vs- THS, et al., Appeal
No. 06-11235 before the U. S. Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
| Is U.S. Law At Odds With Quality Patient Care? An attorney isolated three (3) reasons for medical peer review in his experience. In his view they are used:
[2]. in retaliation against the physician for not ‘playing ball’ in one manner or another (economic or otherwise); or [3]. in retaliation for the physician raising concerns about other physicians’ care and seeking to have those providers’ outcomes reviewed.*** Obviously the medical peer review process can be abused, in large part because of HCQIA immunity provisions. It seems those regulations could be repealed, but the medical profession, as an institution, is generally against that outcome. So individual physicians as well as their patients and potential patients must ponder whether immunity through HCQIA serves a greater good. Perhaps they should ask whether immunity afforded by HCQIA does more harm than good. A Fifth Circuit Ruling Ignites Concern About Quality Patient Care: In 2004, a Texas jury awarded $366 million dollars to compensate a doctor for damages caused him by a bad faith, medical peer review. The multi-million dollar jury award was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 23, 2008.**** Some doctors say this about the Fifth Circuit loss:
peer review. This ruling eliminates consideration of evidence of malice in court. This creates a process that can be used for any reason other than the quality of patient care and assure hospitals of absolute immunity for fraud. The federal appellate ruling does massive harm to the reliability of quality assurance for everyone since the process need not be honest or a measure of quality and may be done with malice and bad faith for ulterior motive. Join Us In Petitioning Congress About HCQIA Patients’ rights activists; public and private sector whistleblowers; good government advocates; private physicians; and all manner of concerned citizens are mobilizing to press Congress for hearings on whether HCQIA immunity provisions should be repealed or substantially modified through legislation. |
| >>>> Let your voice be heard <<<< in this critical debate: HCQIA Immunity or No HCQIA Immunity? Sign our on-line petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/HCQIA/ |
| HOME: Mission Special Reports Case Highlights Case Profiles News Alerts Holistic Advocacy ABOUT US: Association Members Advisory Board WALL OF POVERTY DONATE MEDIA KITS RELATED LINKS CONTACT US |
If you have the latest browser settings
and Adobe Reader, but are encountering
faulty links, garbled PDF files, and/or
inoperable videos, please Contact Us
and Adobe Reader, but are encountering
faulty links, garbled PDF files, and/or
inoperable videos, please Contact Us