medical staff

May 19, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our hospital is negotiating with health insurers to perform delegated credentialing on their behalf.  The insurers are telling us that we cannot have a hearing officer option for conducting a hearing when providers are subject to certain adverse actions, such as termination of participation on a panel. Is this correct?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
Yes. This is how health insurers interested in delegating credentialing functions to health care providers interpret the Medicare Advantage rules for provider participation.  According to those rules, a health insurer involved in the Medicare Advantage program has to give physicians certain rights when it suspends or terminates the physician’s participation agreement.  Among those rights are the right to receive notice of the reasons for the action and the right to appeal that action. The rules go on to talk about a hearing panel but only state that the insurer (or insurer’s delegate) must ensure that the majority of the hearing panel members are peers of the affected physician.

Now you could follow the constitutional principle of English law that instructs that “everything that is not forbidden is permitted” and go ahead and draft your delegated credentialing policies so that they allow for the hearing officer alternative to using a hearing panel.  However, this may create headaches down the road since health insurers have to perform a pre-delegation audit of your policies and procedures before delegating credentialing and will most likely require a revision to your policies if they permit the hearing officer option. Some providers, such as hospitals, use their existing medical staff credentialing policies and procedures to build off of to put delegated credentialing processes in place. To the extent that a hospital is interested in doing so and its existing Credentials Policy allows for the hearing officer option, it can simply revise its Credentials Policy to indicate that the option is not available when a hearing is offered for delegated credentialing purposes (as opposed to medical staff purposes).

May 12, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Due to the long time needed for a physician with behavioral complaints to go through the collegial efforts and progressive steps (e.g., collegial meetings, letters, performance improvement plans, etc.), staff are often left with the impression that Hospital and Medical Staff Leaders are not addressing the problem and “the physician is getting away with his bad behavior again.”  This destroys morale and it makes everyone reluctant to report concerns.  Do you have suggestions?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
This is a great question.  In our experience, nursing and other hospital staff are typically reluctant to report concerns, especially about behavior.  We also know that the reports that get filed are typically “the tip of the iceberg.”  This is supported by The Joint Commission’s Sentinel Event on Behaviors that Undermine a Culture of Safety, which was first published in July 2008 and was updated in June 2021.

It is even harder for staff to file a report if they think they are being ignored or if nothing has been done about reported concerns in the past.  At the same time, addressing behavioral concerns (just like addressing clinical or health concerns) is part of the peer review process and is confidential and privileged.  That doesn’t mean that leaders can’t get back to the person who filed the report.  In fact, we recommend, as a “best practice,” that leaders try to always follow-up with a person who has filed the report or complaint.

The follow-up is important because you will often get additional meaningful information when you talk with the person who filed the report.  For instance, you might learn that the complained of behavior “happens all the time” or that others have been subject to the same behavior by the same physician.  You might also learn the names of additional people who witnessed the incident or who have relevant information.  Any new information should also be documented.

But beyond getting additional information, talking to the person who reported the concern is important because it is your chance to reassure the person that they have been heard.  You can thank the person for coming forward and remind them that documentation is necessary so that action can be taken.  You can also let them know their report has been reviewed by Medical Staff Leadership and that appropriate action will be taken.

You can also let the person know that retaliation of any sort against them for filing a report will not be tolerated and they should report immediately if they think they are being retaliated against in any way.  It’s also a good idea to let them know that their identity has not been disclosed.

Additionally, you can tell the person who filed the report that the Medical Staff deals with concerns about behavior as part of its peer review process and that the process is confidential and privileged according to hospital policy and state law.  You can explain that you are not at liberty to share the results of the peer review process with them, but you can reassure them again that they have been heard and that action is being taken.

You may want to follow-up with a note or e-mail.  This will reinforce the information you provided and it will also give you a chance to remind the person of the important role that they play in addressing concerns (it is difficult to correct a problem without a written report or complaint) and the need for them to continue to report incidents in the future.

May 5, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We’ve got a debate going on at the MEC.  Does the Chief of Staff vote, not vote, or vote only when needed as a tie-breaker?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:

No need to debate any longer!  The good news is that, for the most part, Medical Staffs and their leaders are free to conduct their meetings however they wish.  You are not bound by any sort of formal parliamentary procedure (e.g. “Robert’s Rules of Order”) and, in turn, can set your own rules.  So – the answer to your question is that your Chief of Staff, who chairs the MEC, can vote if your Bylaws and related Medical Staff documents say so.  If the documents are silent, as a general rule, the chair decides procedural matters for the committee.  Since the chair, in this case, has a bit of a conflict of interest, the committee itself may wish to weigh in and make a determination (or develop a policy/guideline for how it will conduct meetings/voting).

If you are wondering how other organizations do it, note that there is not one, “right” position on this matter.  We see some Medical Staff committees that lean toward inclusivity and let all members of the committee vote, whether or not they are the chair, whether or not they are an administrator (e.g. CMO, Medical Director, Service Line Director), and whether or not they are physicians.  I tend to prefer this type of organizational structuring, since I believe providing voting rights to each member of the committee honors the time and energy that they commit to the committee’s work.

We also see Medical Staff committees that only allow physician members to vote (including any chairs, employed physicians, administrators).

Finally, we sometimes see Medical Staff committees that only allow voting by specified, physician members (sometimes limited to physicians who are members of the Active Staff category).

Again, as a general rule, it is up to each organization to establish its own culture and rules regarding meetings and voting.  Note, however, that you should always check with your medical staff counsel before making changes to committee membership and/or voting, since counsel can verify that any changes are consistent with the statutes and other laws in your state that exist to protect (through immunities and privileges) the peer review activities that your Medical Staff conducts through its committees.  Some states have a more narrow definition of a “peer review committee” or “quality assurance committee” that requires membership to be all or mostly physicians, etc.  Counsel can help to make sure you stay within the confines of applicable law and maximize your protections.

April 21, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Do hospital-employed physicians have a conflict of interest with respect to private practice physicians in matters involving credentialing?  Privileging?  Peer review?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
Some independent physicians may feel that employed physicians should not be involved in leadership positions for fear that their employment relationships could influence their actions.  Legally, there is no support for viewing an employment relationship as a disqualifying factor.  And we have rarely seen the type of political pressure from management that independent physicians worry about being brought down on employed physicians.

Of course, if a specific concern is raised about an individual’s participation in any given review, it always makes sense to consider whether an individual has a conflict that could bias the process (e.g., direct competitors, close friends, etc.).  These types of situations should be addressed under the Medical Staff’s conflict of interest guidelines.  But those guidelines should make it clear that employment by, or other contractual arrangement with, a hospital does not, in and of itself, preclude an individual from participating in Medical Staff functions.

April 14, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
A few weeks ago, a nephrologist resigned from our medical staff to take an opportunity out of state.  It’s been brought to my attention that one of the nephrologist’s cases had been flagged for review by our peer review specialist.  The specialist sent me an email asking whether we should continue with our standard peer review process.  Do you have any guidance?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY JOHN WIECZOREK:
This situation is more common than you would think.  Because the nephrologist is no longer a member of your medical staff, we would advise that specific peer review of that physician’s medical services should be discontinued.  The purpose of peer reviewing that physician is to ensure and improve quality; this purpose can no longer be effectuated if the physician has left the medical staff.  Among other things, many of the tools that could be used to improve care would no longer be available (such as having the physician complete additional training and then monitoring a few of the physician’s cases at the hospital).  Also, a malpractice attorney may argue that the peer review privilege doesn’t apply to reviews conducted after a physician has left the medical staff.  Finally, continuing peer review of a physician no longer on your medical staff may give an eager plaintiff’s attorney something to squawk about (e.g., allegations that the purpose of the review is to harm the physician).

March 24, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
I am the chief of the division of family medicine at my hospital.  I recently learned that a nurse’s aide complained to her supervisor about my tone when speaking with the mother of a patient in our clinic.  The complaint made its way into the peer review system, and I was sent a “letter of guidance” referencing the organization’s Code of Conduct and encouraging me, for lack of a better explanation, to be on my best behavior and be mindful of my reputation and that of the health system.

To be honest, although I am involved in leadership and understand the underlying motivation for the Code of Conduct, I found this to be a really patronizing experience.  The aide who made the complaint knows nothing about my history with this patient and his mother, nor the practical or clinical reasons why I might take a serious tone with her.  My treatment of this patient and his mother was appropriate, given the circumstances and I feel pretty strongly that the aide should have stayed out of it or at least raised her concerns with me before reporting me to her supervisor.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss this situation with the aide and her supervisor.  It’s important for the aide to understand that some patients of the clinic are well known by clinic staff to require more intense interactions regarding appropriate treatment options and the importance of compliance with the treatment plan.  I am not expecting an apology from the aide as a result of this conversation but, instead, see this conversation as an opportunity to improve how the clinic team operates and, hopefully, prevent frivolous reports in the future.

Last week, I approached the supervisor regarding this, to schedule a time for all three of us to sit down to talk (me, the supervisor, and the aide).  The supervisor told me that my plan was not appropriate and could be viewed as intimidation.  She refused to schedule the session and said I’d better run my plan past the Chief of Staff first.  I did and she said it’s better to “leave it alone.”

Has the whole world gone crazy?  Can’t professionals talk to each other anymore?  How is this supposed to improve the patient care environment?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
It’s easy to see why you might be frustrated, given the scenario you have described.  A key component of any peer review process should be transparency.  This means all practitioners who are subject to the process should understand that it exists and how it works.  Information should, ideally, be periodically pushed out to members of the Medical Staff to help them understand the many moving parts to the peer review process.  When the process is better understood, practitioners are less likely to feel targeted when their own practices come under scrutiny.

Transparency requires more than knowledge of the process, however.  It also requires practitioner involvement in their own peer review.  In your case, it appears as though the peer review of the concern involving your conduct was concluded without anyone ever asking for your input and getting your side of the story.  How can practitioners be expected to buy-in to a process that does not include their input?  As you describe it, that input may have been vital in deciding the appropriate outcome.  Maybe if you had been given a chance to discuss the facts with those conducting the review, they would have concluded that rather than sending you a letter of education, they should provide additional information and training to clinic personnel regarding tough, non-compliant patient management.

At this point, what’s done is done.  Your best bet may be to respond to the letter of education explaining your side of the story and requesting that consideration be given to obtaining your input should any future, similar concerns be reported.  Further, you might consider recommending that clinic personnel receive additional training to help them understand and manage situations like this.  Don’t worry that your response will be seen as controversial or adversarial.  A professionally-worded response, sent through appropriate channels, is part of the review process and is completely appropriate.  After all, the aim of the peer review process should not only be to work with privileged practitioners to address concerns that are under their control, but also to bring to light related, systemic concerns that should be addressed to improve patient care overall.

With that said, we agree with the aide’s supervisor that it is not a good idea for you to sit down with the aide to discuss this matter.  While doing so might be the fastest, most efficient way to get from point A to point B, the supervisor is right – your actions could intimidate the aide.  And, in the long run, that could lead to aides (and other personnel) being reluctant to report meaningful concerns about practitioners due to fear of retaliation.

This advice may be frustrating, because your intentions may be good.  Instead of focusing on your intentions, though, try to think about process.  Can an effective peer review process rely on the good intentions of every physician whose conduct is reported?  If practitioners are given free rein to “confront” those who report concerns about that, would that have a chilling effect on future reports?  Would that promote advancements in quality?

You can see where we are going with this.

Ideally, this issue would have been addressed with you earlier (when your input was first sought by the leadership reviewing this matter) and, at that time, the organizational definition of retaliation could have been provided, along with a caution about engaging in any conduct that could be viewed as retaliatory.  Our recommendation is that a professionalism policy include any contact with the individual who filed a report, in an attempt to discuss the matter, as retaliatory – no matter the intention.  Letting practitioners know this early in the process avoids any embarrassment or confusion later.  Further, bringing it up early in the process avoids an implication that the practitioner is pursuing retaliatory conduct and allows it to serve as a generalized, non-confrontational FYI.  In most organizations, it works well and keeps disputes (and retaliation) to a minimum.

Peer review is tough and imperfect. Organizations are constantly tweaking their processes to correct deficiencies and improve the experience for the practitioners who are subject to review.  We hope you can take the flaws you perceived in this review of your conduct and work through available channels at your organization to suggest appropriate changes (e.g., earlier, methodical request for the practitioner’s input and guidance to practitioners of who they can contact to discuss the matter).

March 17, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our hospital’s medical staff is working on a policy to screen older practitioners at reappointment for health issues that may affect their clinical ability.  A member of the MEC was previously at a hospital with a similar policy in place. She has spearheaded the effort and noted that her previous hospital’s policy was able to detect health issues with three elderly physicians.  While the preliminary discussions have been overwhelmingly positive, a couple of our physicians in their 70s voiced dissent with the policy at the last full medical staff meeting because they feel singled out.  Should we be worried about them suing the hospital if the policy is put in place?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY JOHN WIECZOREK:
The current legal status of these types of “late career practitioner policies” is in flux.  Late career practitioner policies which screen older physicians at reappointment have been around for decades.  There are published articles detailing the various methods for implementing a late career practitioner policy and how effective those policies were. The rationale for the policies makes sense – catch any potential problems proactively before any patient harm or clinical trends appear.

However, in early 2020 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against Yale New Haven Hospital based on its late career practitioner policy.  The EEOC alleged that Yale New Haven was violating both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by singling out physicians solely on the basis of their age.  While Yale New Haven is fighting the still-pending lawsuit, certain other hospitals and health systems have withdrawn their policies and paid damages to older physicians after being targeted by the EEOC.

Therefore, creating a new late career practitioner policy or continued enforcement of an old policy creates some legal risk, at least while the EEOC lawsuit against Yale is still pending.  Ultimately, the decision to move forward with such a policy needs to be deliberate, with buy-in from both the hospital’s medical staff and administration, and the knowledge that an adverse court opinion in the EEOC lawsuit will immediately put the brakes on such a policy.

For follow-up questions, please contact John Wieczorek at jwieczorek@hortyspringer.com.

January 13, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We’ve had a question raised about a Medical Staff member who performed a test on a family member without going through the formal patient registration process.  What can we do to educate our medical staff about the risks involved with these kinds of practices?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
We have found it to be helpful to set forth guidelines that remind Medical staff members of the concerns that can arise when a physician treats him or herself, a family member, or others with whom the physician has a close relationship.  A good starting spot is the Standard E-8.19 in the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics, which speaks to how such actions can compromise professional objectivity and unduly influence medical judgment.  In addition, your state medical board may have guidance on this issue.

Relying on these resources, Medical Staff leaders can then adopt policy language that reinforces the standards of acceptable medical practice in these situations.

December 9, 2021

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Early on during the pandemic, stress got the best of a well-thought-of member of our Medical Staff, resulting in the Leadership Council issuing this physician a letter of reprimand, a copy of which went into his file.  The issue never became a problem again and recently he asked if we could remove the letter from his file, as he is worried this could come back to haunt him if he decides to seek opportunities elsewhere.  Is it okay honor his request?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
While we can understand this individual’s frustrations about having negative information in his file, there are a number of reasons why we recommend thinking twice before removing anything from a practitioner’s confidential file.

First, removing documentation from the file may create insurance coverage issues.  Some hospitals that we work with have been told by their professional liability carriers that removing information from a practitioner’s file would violate the hospital’s condition of coverage because it would hinder the carrier’s ability to defend any claims involving that practitioner.  Another reason we’ve found is that in those rare instances where an MEC does have to take an adverse action against a physician, it is often based on a history or pattern of conduct.  It is extremely difficult to justify such an action if the documentation of these past events is no longer available.  Similarly, removal of such documentation hampers the institutional memory of the hospital, making it more difficult for future Medical Staff leaders to fully understand past issues and the steps that were taken to mend them.

It is a good idea to have access to confidential files policy in place, so your leadership team can anticipate these types of requests and how they will be handled when they come up.  In the meantime, it may be helpful to explain why you can’t honor this particular physician’s request (based on the reasons above), but then invite him to provide a written update or response to the original concern that will be made a part of his file as well.

November 11, 2021

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Last month, our hospital announced a policy requiring individuals who are physically present on the premises to be fully vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine.  We understand that this policy applies to advanced practice professionals and members of the Medical Staff, but we are not sure how to enforce it.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

ANSWER:
The Medical Staff Bylaws and Credentials Policy (“Medical Staff Governance Documents”) probably require members “to abide by the medical staff documents and the policies of the Hospital.”  That’s a start, but you may want more.  Here are some ideas.

We recommend that the Medical Staff Governance Documents include a threshold criterion that requires individuals to “document compliance with immunization and health screening requirements (e.g., TB testing, mandatory vaccines, and infectious agent exposures).”  We also recommend that your documents expressly state: “Failure of an individual to continuously satisfy any of the threshold eligibility criteria will result in the administrative relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges, unless a waiver is granted.”

If you don’t have that language now, the Medical Executive Committee may be able to add it to your Medical Staff Governance Documents, but you’ll have to check the notice requirements and the amendment process.

Another alternative is to rely on language in your Medical Staff Governance Documents that requires individuals to provide information when it is requested by a medical staff leader.  Specifically, we recommend the following language:  “Failure of an individual to provide information pertaining to an individual’s qualifications for appointment or clinical privileges in response to a written request from any medical staff leader or any other authorized committee will result in the administrative relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges until the information is provided to the satisfaction of the requesting party.”  Since the hospital policy requires proof of vaccination, we are comfortable using this language to help enforce the hospital policy.

Remember, a relinquishment is administrative in nature and is not considered an adverse professional review action.  Therefore, the individual is not entitled to a hearing and the hospital is not required to report the individual to the National Practitioner Data Bank or the State Board.