Can excluded physicians get peer review?
Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?
Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”
However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.
More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.
Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
Excluded physicians sometimes prevail
Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.
Mr. Callahan cites aby the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.
In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitalsto alter credentialing.
Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.
Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.
Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.