Credentials Committee

November 14, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have an applicant for appointment and privileges who disclosed that she recently enrolled in our state health program and that she had enrolled in a similar program in the state where she previously practiced.  The applicant also shared that she had completed inpatient treatment for substance use disorder earlier in the year.   We were not particularly concerned with this disclosure since the applicant is being monitored by our state program which is quite thorough.

However, we just learned that the applicant’s employment had been terminated, by her previous employer, for practicing in the clinic while impaired.  We are concerned because she misrepresented this information on her application form. What can we do?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
Bylaws or credentials policies (the “Credentials Policy”) often allow a hospital to “not process an application” when there are misstatements or omissions.  Typically, the Credentials Policy requires, in situations like this one, that the applicant be notified, in writing, about the potential misstatement or omission, and be invited to explain.  Thereafter, the response will be reviewed, often by the Chair of the Credentials Committee and the Chief Medical Officer, and a determination will be made whether the application should be processed further.

Importantly, this process does not result in a “denial” of the application.  And, the Credentials Policy should make it clear that “No action taken pursuant to this Section will entitle the applicant or member to a hearing or appeal.”

This process should not be different even if an applicant is claiming a disability.  A physician’s substance use disorder may be a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  And, the ADA may not allow inquiries related to a physician’s impairment prior to a determination that the physician is otherwise qualified to fulfill the essential functions of appointment and clinical privileges.  However, an impairment does not excuse a physician for misstating information on an application, including that the physician was terminated, or otherwise disciplined, for practicing while impaired.

Therefore, you are free to treat a misstatement, like the one you described, in a manner consistent with any other misstatement or omission.  That means, if you provide notice to the applicant of the misstatement or omission and allow the applicant to respond and, thereafter, determine that the misstatement or omission is substantial enough to support a legitimate concern about the applicant’s integrity, you may, consistent with the controlling documents, decide not to process the application further.

Ideally, your Credentials Policy should treat these decisions as administrative in nature.  This decision should not be considered an adverse professional review action.  The decision not to process the application, because of a misstatement or omission, should not trigger a right to a hearing.  Thus, these decisions are not reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank and should not be reportable to the state board either.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Susan Lapenta at slapenta@hortyspringer.com.

October 10, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are amending our medical staff governance documents and considering giving Advanced Practice Professionals (“APPs”) a larger role in medical staff affairs.  Do you have any recommendations based on your experience working with other hospitals?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
With the ever-increasing role that APPs, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, play in the delivery of health care in hospitals, we are seeing many hospitals across the country wrestle with this question.  Unfortunately, there is not a “one-size-fits-all” answer and the appropriate solution needs to take into consideration federal and state regulations and the culture of your medical staff and hospital, among other things.

Let’s start with the regulations.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Conditions of Participation (“CoPs”) defer to state law when it comes to appointing APPs to the medical staff:  “The medical staff must be composed of doctors of medicine or osteopathy.  In accordance with State law, including scope-of-practice laws, the medical staff may also include…non-physician practitioners who are determined to be eligible for appointment by the governing body.”  42 C.F.R. §482.22(a) (emphasis added).  However, you want to be sure to check your state’s laws and regulations to determine if those sources are more restrictive.  By way of example, Pennsylvania limits medical staff membership to physicians and dentists.  28 Pa. Code § 107.2.  Even though Pennsylvania has a “structured exception” allowing hospitals to admit podiatrists to the medical staff, there is no corresponding exception for APPs.  Compare Pennsylvania’s restrictive approach with the approach taken by Colorado, which allows both physicians and non-physician practitioners to be on the medical staff.

Even in the states that permit APPs to be on the medical staff, we are seeing a variety of approaches.  Some hospitals make APPs eligible for medical staff membership, including appointment to the Active Staff.  That being said, these hospitals impose appropriate limitations on their prerogatives when compared to physician members of the Active Staff such as not being able to serve as the President of the Medical Staff (the Interpretive Guidelines to the CoPs say that the President of the Medical Staff “must be a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or, if permitted by state law where the hospital is located, a doctor of dental surgery, dental medicine, or podiatric medicine”).  While we don’t see this approach taken frequently, it is more common with Critical Access Hospitals or smaller hospitals where the majority of clinical services are provided by APPs.

A more common approach is gradual integration of APPs into medical staff functions.  For example, the medical staff may begin by creating an APP Credentials Committee which reviews applications of APPs and reports to the regular Credentials Committee, or appoint APPs to the Credentials Committee to tap into their expertise when it comes to state scope of practice laws for APPs, how they practice, and what they are permitted to do in similarly-situated hospitals.  Some hospitals are also appointing an APP to the Medical Executive Committee and Multi-Specialty Peer Review Committee.  It varies with respect to whether they are given voting rights since we have seen some physician members of the medical staff express discomfort with an APP, who may have a supervising agreement while practicing in the hospital, evaluating the care they provide as a part of one of these committees.

In conclusion, APPs are increasing in number and have a growing role in providing clinical services in hospitals.  If your medical staff has not yet addressed this issue, the odds are that it will need to in the future.  Nevertheless, these are interesting and exciting issues whose solutions can result in a more vibrant and robust medical staff and hospital.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Charles Chulack at CChulack@hortyspringer.com.

August 29, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our Credentials Committee is reviewing a reappointment application for a medical staff member who has had some pretty significant behavioral issues over the past year.  We want to recommend that she be reappointed for less than a full two-year appointment term to reinforce the need to change her behavior, but some members of the committee think that it would be an “adverse recommendation” and give her the right to a hearing. Is it?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
The short answer is that whether or not a recommendation to grant appointment for less than two years (or three years for those hospitals that have made the switch to longer terms) is governed solely by the existing medical staff bylaws.  If your bylaws do not guarantee two-year appointment terms, and the grant of appointment for less than two years is not specifically listed as one of the things that gives an individual the right to request a hearing in the pertinent section of the bylaws, then no, it would not be considered adverse.

Arriving at this conclusion can be more challenging if, rather than listing specific, clear recommendations that trigger the right to a hearing, the bylaws instead provide that “any recommendation that adversely affects an applicant or member” gives the right to request a hearing.  Whether the hospital views a less than two-year appointment term as adversely affecting an individual or not could very well differ from the viewpoint of the medical staff member at issue.

Bottom line, medical staff bylaws should affirmatively state that medical staff appointment will be granted for “not more” than two (or three) years and should give the Credentials Committee and the Medical Executive Committee the clear ability to grant appointment terms of less than the relevant time period – without concerns that it constitutes an adverse recommendation.  A short-term appointment can be a helpful tool in the exact situation posed above – when medical staff leaders are trying to get someone’s attention, emphasizing the need to make changes during a shortened time period of more focused review.  It can also be helpful when a medical staff member is in the midst of a review process that will not be fully concluded before the current term expires, giving the ability to reappoint that individual on a short-term basis, pending the outcome of the relevant review process.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell at LMitchell@hortyspringer.com.

June 29, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are working on revisions to our medical staff bylaws and one of the committee members asked whether our credentialing process complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  This led to a long and winding discussion about whether we need to comply with an employment law in this context.  Do we?  Isn’t credentialing completely separate from employment?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
It is true that the ADA is an employment law, so on its face, does not appear to apply to credentialing processes.  It is also true that “typical” credentialing practices would likely violate the ADA – because hospitals have traditionally treated health information being sought from applicants just as they would treat any other information being requested on an application form – references, verifications, licensure matters, etc.  As a result, in the credentialing process, health information is requested and reviewed at a stage that is likely analogous to the “pre-offer” stage under the ADA – the most restrictive stage of employment where employers aren’t yet permitted to request any health information.  (Under the ADA, employers do eventually get to request and consider everything necessary that is related to health.  It is more a question of managing the timing of those requests.)

As you pointed out, though, credentialing IS different from employment, so why should we care if the process is compliant with the ADA – an employment law?  There are several reasons.  First, there are some hospitals that do directly employ physicians, and the ADA is clearly applicable to those relationships.  Second, even if the hospital isn’t the employer, most hospital-affiliated physician groups make employment contingent on the physician obtaining privileges at an affiliated hospital (i.e., successfully completing the credentialing process), and it is unclear whether a court would agree that one arm of a corporate entity can ask questions or seek information that the other arm of the same entity could not yet legally request.  Third, some jurisdictions have expanded the ADA to independent contractor relationships, and finally, there is a trend in court cases today where independent contractor physicians are claiming to be employees even when there are no employment agreements in place, claiming that the hospital exercises sufficient control over them to render them employees (for example, by making them comply with protocols, order sets, taking call, and medical staff bylaws requirements).

One way to address concerns about the credentialing process would be to change the timing of requesting and reviewing health information, asking detailed questions about the health of all applicants but waiting to review that information until after the Credentials Committee has determined that an individual is “otherwise qualified” for the clinical privileges requested on the basis of everything else that is being considered – education, training, experience, etc.  Only after that determination is made should the health information be reviewed.  Due to the sensitivity of that information, we also recommend that only one or two medical staff leaders review that information – reporting to the Credentials Committee that there are no concerns, or that concerns were raised and now the committee needs to review and discuss accommodations.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell at LMitchell@hortyspringer.com.

October 13, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
As part of our peer review process, we want to develop a plan requiring a physician to obtain 15 hours of CME (to improve performance in a couple of identified areas).  Our peer review committee has always forwarded these types of recommendations to the MEC and Board for approval prior to implementing them.  I recently heard that this is no longer recommended.  Can you explain why?  Did something change about MEC and Board oversight of Medical Staff activities?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
Medical Staffs have come a long way in the past 20 years.  As the roles and responsibilities of Medical Staff leaders have multiplied, many Medical Staffs have decided to dedicate the MEC to matters of oversight and strategy, while delegating the detailed, day-to-day work of the Medical Staff to other committees.  This is how the Credentials Committee first came into fashion.  More recently, the Leadership Council and Multispecialty Peer Review Committee have begun to assume greater roles within the Medical Staff.  This means not limiting the work of the committee to conducting clinical case reviews and reporting those results to the MEC.  Most modern peer review committees are responsible for so much more.

For example, multispecialty peer review committees are commonly responsible for all of the following:

  • Taking full responsibility for implementing the Medical Staff peer review policy
  • Recommending revisions to the peer review policy and process
  • Reviewing and approving the OPPE and FPPE indicators recommended by the departments for each specialty
  • Keeping track of system issues that are identified through the peer review process, to ensure that they are addressed and do not fall through the cracks
  • Reviewing cases referred to the committee for peer review (which includes developing performance improvement plans for practitioners, where appropriate)

Any peer review committee that is performing all of the above functions must be engaged, educated, and savvy about peer review (so it’s important to make good choices about committee composition and to provide periodic training).  So, it only makes sense a hospital and medical staff would honor the commitment of the committee’s members by letting go of micromanagement and embracing a pure oversight role.

Oversight does not mean abdication of all responsibility.  But oversight does not require detailed information.  All the MEC and governing board need is enough information to be sure that good policies are in place and that the responsible individuals are following them.  This means summary/aggregate data reports work well.  For example, it should suffice if reports to the MEC and Board list the total number of cases reviewed through the peer review process within a specified period of time, with that data then broken down by department or specialty, with information about how those cases were addressed – e.g., through a letter to the practitioner, a collegial intervention, a performance improvement plan, or otherwise).

Empowering the multispecialty peer review committee to implement the peer review process has other benefits, in addition to demonstrating honor and respect for the committee’s members.  For one, by giving primary authority over the peer review process to a non-disciplinary committee, the Medical Staff promotes a peer review process grounded in collegial, progressive steps – rather than a punitive, threatening process.

Further, if collegial steps are unsuccessful in managing a practitioner’s performance issues, the MEC and/or Board may eventually need to get involved.  By keeping those bodies out of the initial collegial efforts of the Medical Staff peer review process, the hospital and Medical Staff preserve the members as disinterested individuals, allowing the MEC and/or Board to review matters with a fresh set of eyes when a practitioner comes before them.  This promotes fairness in the process, since practitioners who are subject to review can rest assured that there will be multiple layers of review – before committees/bodies that are for the most part disinterested – before any “disciplinary” action were to be imposed.

To conclude – we absolutely do recommend that hospitals and Medical Staffs empower their peer review committees to implement CME requirements, as well as other performance improvement measures, without first having those measures taken to the MEC or Board for approval.  It’s efficient, it shows trust in those leaders doing the legwork on peer review, and it is an important part of a collegial, fair process.

September 29, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are in the process of credentialing a new applicant.  We spotted some red flags pretty early on.  The Chair of the Credentials Committee knows physicians where the applicant trained.  Those physicians are not included by the applicant on the application.  Can the Credentials Committee Chair still call these physicians or are we limited to talking to the references the applicant listed?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
This is a great question.  When it comes to gathering information about applicants for appointment, we like to say, “The sky is the limit.”  This means that you are permitted to obtain information from anyone who might have information that is relevant to the applicant’s qualifications.  The permission to obtain information is probably reflected in your Bylaws or Credentials Policy.  For instance, we include the following language in our documents:

The individual authorizes the Hospital, Medical Staff leaders, and their representatives to consult with any third party who may have information relating to the individual’s professional competence or conduct or any other matter relating to their qualifications for initial or continued appointment, and to obtain communications, reports, records, and other documents of third parties that may be relevant to such questions.  The individual also specifically authorizes third parties to release this information to the Hospital and its authorized representatives upon request.

This language protects both your hospital for asking for information and the person who has the information for providing it to you.  As added protection, there should also be similar information in the application form itself.  So, the bottom line is that you are not restricted from gathering information from individuals who the applicant has identified in the application.

The one area where you want to be careful is if you are calling a current employer.  The applicant may not have given notice of their intention to leave.  Usually, we recommend holding off on asking for a reference from the current employer until a little later in the process.  But, ultimately, you can ask the employer for a reference and, as a best practice, follow up with a phone call as well.

Looking for other guidance on difficult credentialing issues, why not join us in Las Vegas on November 17-19 for Credentialing for Excellence!

December 2, 2021

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Who should be on our Credentials Committee and what should be the terms of service for the members?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
A Credentials Committee is best composed of experienced leaders, such as past chiefs of staff or other physicians who have had medical staff leadership experience.  Many medical staffs have representation from a variety of specialties to ensure that the Credentials Committee has the expertise necessary to address difficult credentialing and privileging issues.  With the increasing number of advanced practice providers (e.g., nurse practitioners and physician assistants) providing services in hospitals, more and more Medical Staffs are appointing an advanced practice provider to the Credentials Committee as a voting member and for that individual’s input and expertise on the topic of credentialing and privileging these providers.

Service on the Credentials Committee should be the primary medical staff obligation of the members and terms should be at least three years so that committee members have an opportunity to gain some experience and expertise in credentialing.  The terms should also be staggered so that there is always a repository of expertise on the committee.  The Credentials Committee’s primary responsibility is to review and make recommendations on applications for medical staff appointment and clinical privileges.  It can also oversee the development of threshold eligibility criteria for clinical privileges.

For answers to all your credentialing questions, join Lauren Massucci and Charlie Chulack for the Horty, Springer & Mattern seminar “Credentialing for Excellence” on March 10 through 12, 2022 in Savannah, Georgia, or April 7 through 9, 2022 in New Orleans.

February 6, 2020

Posted on by hortyspringer

* * *
QUESTION:      What do you recommend for the composition of the Credentials Committee and the terms for service for the members?
* * *

ANSWER:         A Credentials Committee is best composed of experienced leaders, such as past chiefs of staff or other physicians who have had medical staff leadership experience.  Many Medical Staffs have representation from a variety of specialties to ensure that the committee has the expertise necessary to address difficult credentialing and privileging issues.  With the increasing number of advanced practice clinicians (e.g., nurse practitioners and physician assistants) providing services in hospitals, more and more Medical Staffs are appointing at least one advanced practice clinician to the Credentials Committee as a voting member and for that individual’s input and expertise on the topic of credentialing and privileging these providers.

Service on the Credentials Committee should be the primary medical staff obligation of the members and terms should be at least three years so that committee members have an opportunity to gain some experience and expertise in credentialing.  The terms should also be staggered so that there is always a repository of expertise on the committee.  This Credentials Committee’s primary responsibility is to review and make recommendations on applications for medical staff appointment and clinical privileges.  It can also oversee the development of threshold eligibility criteria for clinical privileges.

January 10, 2019

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        A brand new member of our Credentials Committee, who is opposed to a request from a physician in a different specialty to apply for a privilege to perform a procedure that member performs himself, has been lobbying other committee members to deny the request and has asked that the request first be referred to his department for a vote.  A written application has not been submitted. The potential applicant did not have residency training in this procedure but, rather, took a short course conducted by an equipment vendor.  The physician requesting the privilege has threatened a lawsuit on antitrust grounds, because he has learned about the lobbying.  How can we manage this situation?

ANSWER:            If your Bylaws or Credentials Policy does not have a section on how to manage requests for privileges that cross specialty lines, consider deferring consideration until such language is adopted and implemented.  It is a best practice to have the Credentials Committee develop eligibility criteria before processing requests (both for new privileges and for practitioners seeking privileges in different specialties).  If current criteria refer to residency training in one specialty, the committee can review possible alternate pathways.  Any physician, including the potential applicant, can submit proposed criteria for education, training and experience.  The committee should also consider how FPPE would work, indications for the procedure, and how call coverage and complications would be handled. How much training is sufficient to demonstrate competence?   A survey of other hospitals would be a helpful step to demonstrate objectivity. Also, a Credentials Committee member who is in an affected specialty has a conflict of interest and should be recused from the process (but he can submit proposed criteria).  It is best if recusal is discussed with the affected member in advance of the meeting. The minutes should reflect that he left the room before final deliberation and vote on the criteria. A conflict of interest should not be viewed as a judgment on the individual’s character but, rather, as a step to protect the integrity of the process.  And, departments should not vote on criteria or specific requests; that is too easily challenged as a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The applicant’s request should not be processed until either new eligibility criteria are adopted by the Credentials Committee, MEC (and Board), or the current criteria are confirmed. A determination of ineligibility is not a “denial.”  (If the Credentials Committee and MEC recommend, and the Board determines to adopt, eligibility criteria with an alternate pathway that would enable this request to be processed, the interested committee member should also recuse himself from the consideration of the application.)

For more information, be sure to join Ian Donaldson and Barbara Blackmond for The Complete Course for Medical Staff Leaders!  You may want to send the new Credentials Committee member to the Complete Course if he has little leadership experience or to our Credentialing for Excellence program if he is otherwise experienced but lacking depth in credentialing!

June 7, 2018

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        Our hospital affiliated group signed an employment contract with a new surgeon.  Before we got very far with the credentialing process, he had moved to town and the Chief Medical Officer of the Group was putting pressure on the Credentials Committee to approve his application for appointment.  The problem is that there were multiple red flags we discovered, including a pending complaint with the state board, a very bad reference, and unexplained gaps in his professional experience.  If he had not been employed by our Group already, we would definitely not want to appoint him.  To make matters worse, we just learned that he resigned his appointment at the last hospital where he practiced and he’s in town.  What do we do?

 

ANSWER:            We hear some version of this problem on a regular basis from clients all across the country.  In many hospitals and health care systems, the recruitment and employment process are out of alignment with the credentialing process.  It is not uncommon (although it is very unwise) for employment decisions to be made, signing bonuses to be paid, and representations to be made to new recruits of the credentialing process being a “slam dunk” or a “done deal” before the Credentials Committee has reviewed the application.

Everyone who is applying for appointment must meet the same threshold eligibility criteria.  Everyone must bear the burden of demonstrating that they have the requisite:  (a) current competence; (b) technical skills; (c) clinical judgment; (d) adherence to the ethics of their profession; (e) good reputation and character; (f) ability to safely and competently exercise the clinical privileges requested; and (g) ability to work harmoniously with others.  When there are questions or concerns raised about an applicant, the application should be considered incomplete and not processed until those concerns are resolved.

Your credentialing process is the foundation for the quality of care that you deliver in your organization.  You should not take shortcuts or make exceptions, especially for employed physicians.  As hard as it might be, and as much pressure as they might feel, Medical Staff Leaders need to stay the course.  It is important that applicants are treated the same, regardless of whether they are being recruited and employed by the system or they are in private practice.  Keeping the burden on the applicant to address and resolve all concerns is the best course of action.  Medical Staff Leaders should also document, in detail, the concerns that they have.

Moving forward, find a way to align and coordinate your recruitment and credentialing efforts.  Bringing the people together who are responsible for these functions is an important first step.  Efforts should be undertaken to coordinate threshold criteria, objectives, and timelines.  It is also important to find a way to share information early on so the people who are doing the recruiting have the same information that Medical Staff Leaders will have when reviewing the application.  Whether they are working to recruit or credential physicians, the objectives should be the same – bringing high quality physicians into the organization in as timely a fashion as possible.

Please join us in our national program – Credentialing for Excellence – where we discuss this challenge and other credentialing challenges.