BILL ANALYSIS AB 120 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 12, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS Mary Hayashi, Chair AB 120 (Hayashi) - As Amended: May 7, 2009 SUBJECT : Healing arts: peer review. SUMMARY : Amends the medical peer review process by recommending external peer review in limited circumstances, requires peer review bodies to share information, establishes a process to provide reasonable opportunity for the selection of a mutually acceptable hearing officer, establishes the duties of a hearing officer, and sets parameters for attorney representation. Specifically, this bill : 1)Declares the public policy of the state that healthcare licentiates who may be providing substandard care be subject to the peer review hearing and reporting process set forth, as specified. 2)Prohibits a member of a medical or professional staff, by contract or otherwise, from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility to ensure that the peer review process is not circumvented. 3)States that with respect to services that may only be provided by members who have, or who are members of a medical group that has a current exclusive contract for certain identified services, termination of the contract, or termination of the member's employment by the medical group holding the contract, may result in the member's ineligibility to provide the services covered by the contract. 4)Requires the peer review body of a health care facility to be entitled to review and make recommendations to the governing body of the facility regarding quality considerations whenever the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licentiates with whom the health AB 120 Page 2 care facility has a contract occurs, and requires the governing body to give great weight to these recommendations. 5)Preserves the right of a governing body's ability to take action against a licentiate, as specified. 6)Declares the policy of the state that in certain limited circumstances, external peer review may be necessary to promote and protect patient care in order to eliminate perceived bias, obtain needed medical expertise, or respond to other particular circumstances. 7)Encourages a peer review body to obtain external peer review for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilege holder, or member of the medical staff in the following circumstances: a) Committee or department reviews that could affect a licentiate's membership or privileges do not provide a sufficiently clear basis for action or inaction; b) No current medical staff member can provide the necessary expertise in the clinical procedure or area under review; and, c) To promote impartial peer review. 8)Requires a peer review body to respond to the reasonable request of another peer review body and produce the records requested concerning a licentiate under review to the extent not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law, upon reasonable receipt of copying costs. 9)Prohibits the records produced from being subject to discovery to the extent provided in Section 1156.1 and 1157 of the Evidence Code, and any other applicable sections of law. AB 120 Page 3 10)Requires the peer review body responding to the request to be entitled to all confidentiality protections and privileges provided by law as to the information and records disclosed. 11)Requires a hearing be held, as determined by the peer review body, before a trier of fact, which shall be an arbitrator or arbitrators selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licentiate and the peer review body, or before a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. 12)Prohibits a hearing officer from gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome of a hearing, requires the hearing officer to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest within the last five years as reasonably known to the hearing officer, prohibits the hearing officer from acting as a prosecuting officer or advocate, and prohibits the hearing officer from voting. 13)Requires the hearing officer to meet both of the following requirements: a) Be selected through a process that provides a reasonable opportunity for selection of a hearing officer who is mutually acceptable to the licentiate and the peer review body; and, b) Be an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, attorneys from a firm utilized by the hospital, the medical staff, or the involved licentiate within the preceding two years shall not be eligible. AB 120 Page 4 14)Establishes the following process as a reasonable opportunity for selection of a mutually acceptable hearing officer: a) If the licentiate and the peer review body are unable to agree on a hearing officer within 10 business days of the date that the peer review body receives the request for a hearing, they shall utilize the services of a third party selection service, as set forth in the healthcare facility's medical staff bylaws, or if none is specified, that is determined by mutual agreement of the parties within 15 business days of the date the peer review body receives the request for a hearing; b) If the licentiate and the peer review body are unable to agree on a third party selection service, the following must occur: i) Each party shall have five business days to provide a list of five names of individuals meeting specified requirements; ii) Each party shall trade lists and have three business days to strike up to two names from the list and to rank the remaining names in order of preference, assigning number one to the name with the strongest preference, and no name shall be left blank; iii) The candidate with the lowest combined score whose name has not been stricken by either party shall be invited to serve as the hearing officer; AB 120 Page 5 iv) In the event of a tie, the matter shall be resolved by lot, drawing from the names of the two candidates with the lowest combined score; and, v) If this candidate is unable to serve, the other candidate with the lowest combined score shall be asked to serve. If neither of these two candidates is able to serve, the peer review body may select a hearing officer who need not be one of the individuals remaining on the lists. 15)Requires that the timeframe within which a hearing must commence, as specified, be tolled for purposes of complying with the process of selecting a hearing officer, provided the parties are engaged in a good faith attempt to select a mutually acceptable hearing officer. 16)Requires the hearing officer to endeavor to ensure that all parties maintain proper decorum and have reasonable opportunity to be heard and present all relevant oral and documentary evidence. 17)Requires the hearing officer to be entitled to determine the order of, or procedure for, presenting evidence and argument during the hearing and shall have the authority and discretion to make all rulings on questions pertaining to matters of law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. 18)Requires the hearing officer to take all appropriate steps to ensure a timely resolution of the hearing, but may not terminate the hearing process. However, in the case of flagrant noncompliance with the procedural rules governing the hearing process or egregious interference with the orderly conduct of the hearing, the hearing officer may recommend that the hearing panel terminate the hearing, provided that this AB 120 Page 6 activity is authorized by the applicable bylaws of the medical staff. 19)States that during a hearing concerning a final proposed action for which reporting is required to be filed, as specified, both parties shall have the right to be represented by an attorney of the party's choice at the party's expense, however: a) Prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney if the licentiate notifies the peer review body in writing no later than 15 days prior to the hearing that he or she has elected to not be represented by an attorney. Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties, this election shall be binding; b) If the licentiate does not provide the written notice described within the required timeframe, the peer review body may be represented by an attorney even if the licentiate later elects to not be represented by an attorney; and, c) Dental professional society peer review bodies may be represented by an attorney even if the licentiate declines to be represented by an attorney. 20)Defines "external peer review" as peer review provided by licentiates who are not members of the peer review body, who are impartial, and who have the necessary expertise in the clinical procedure or area under review. 21)Makes legislative findings and declarations. EXISTING LAW : AB 120 Page 7 1)Establishes the Medical Board of California (MBC) which regulates and licenses physicians and surgeons. 2)Provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as specified. 3)Provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, as codified under Section 809, et seq. These include authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning a final action, which must be held before either an arbitrator mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. These due process requirements do not apply to peer review proceedings conducted in state or county hospitals, University of California hospitals, or to other teaching hospitals, as defined. 4)Requires the chief of staff of a medical or professional staff or other chief executive officer, medical director, or administrator of any peer review body and the chief executive officer or administrator of any licensed healthcare facility or clinic to file an 805 report to the MBC within 15 days after the effective date of any of the following occurring as a result of an action of a peer review body: a) A licentiate's application for staff privileges or membership is denied or rejected for a medical disciplinary cause or reason; b) A licentiate's membership, staff privileges, or employment is terminated or revoked for a medical disciplinary cause or reason; or, c) Restrictions are imposed, or voluntarily accepted, on staff privileges, membership, or employment for a cumulative total of 30 days or more for any 12 month period, for a medical disciplinary cause or reason. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal. COMMENTS : AB 120 Page 8 Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office, "This bill will improve the peer review system in California to ensure quality health care is being provided to patients. Currently, the peer review system can be open to manipulation and unreasonable delay. This bill will provide for a more effective peer review process in which physicians and surgeons are continuously monitored and assessed to improve the quality of care that is provided to patients." Background . Medical peer review is the process by which a professional review body considers whether a practitioner's clinical privileges or membership in a professional society will be adversely affected by a physician's competence or professional conduct. The foremost objective of the medical peer review process is the promotion of the highest quality of medical care as well as patient safety. Variations exist on the procedures, commencement, practice and subject of peer review. All medical entities set their own standards for peer review, some more rigorous than others, and some adhere to them more meticulously than others. The peer review process is often lengthy and can take months or even years. Although peer review is supposed to be an objective review of professional skills, there has been rising concern relating to "sham peer review." Sham peer review is the use of the peer review system to discredit, harass, discipline, or otherwise negatively affect a physician's ability to practice medicine or exercise professional judgment for a non-medical or patient safety related reason. Other criticisms of peer review include over legalization of the process, lack of transparency in the system, and burdensome human and financial toll peer review brings not only to the hospital but also to a physician under review. California law entitles a licentiate who is the subject of a final action of a peer review body to specified due process rights. Under Section 809 of the Business and Professions Code, a physician about whom an 805 report may be filed is entitled to notice of the proposed action and an opportunity for a hearing with full procedural rights, including discovery, examination of witnesses, formal record of the proceedings and written findings. A physician may contest the results of this hearing with judicial review in Superior Court. When a licensee is disciplined for a medical cause or reason by AB 120 Page 9 a peer review committee, the MBC receives an 805 report so that it may take appropriate action. According to the MBC in 2007, it received 138 reports from a licensee pool of 125,612 physicians. Of these reports, one accusation was filed, 92 cases are pending disposition, and 45 cases were closed. The number of 805 reports varies from year to year. SB 231 (Figueroa) Chapter 674, Statutes of 2005, required the MBC to contract with an independent entity to conduct a comprehensive study of the existing peer review process. SB 231 required the study to include a comprehensive description of the various steps of, and decision makers in, the peer review process; a survey of peer review cases to determine the incidence of peer review; and an assessment of the cost of peer review to licentiates. In the report, Lumetra concluded that "the present peer review system is broken for various reasons and is in need of a major fix, if the process is to truly serve the citizens of California." One major recommendation is to re-design the peer review process, including establishing a separate, independent peer review organization that has no vested interest in the review outcome, except the protection of the public. [Licensed healthcare facilities/clinics, healthcare service plans, professional societies, and medical groups] would still provide the first level quality/safety screening of the physician practice but the independent agency would assume the responsibility for making decisions about any actions toward the physician, including 805 or 821.5 reporting. The establishment of an unbiased third party would eliminate the inconsistencies, variations, and conflicts of interest that confront and baffle entities that perform peer review. The MBC would continue to investigate all 805 reports and make determinations about any license actions. Less dramatic but equally important recommendations involve correcting the transparency issue (e.g., through improved public disclosure), emphasizing credentialing and re-credentialing as a means to identify and further investigate potential physician practice problems, and promoting education to better inform physician and entities about peer review and 805 and 809 reporting criteria. We recommend that the AB 120 Page 10 codes be clarified, especially as they relate to the timing of when to report an 805. We also offer suggestions on ways to fund these recommendations that would not involve increasing taxes or diverting State Funds. Finally, we emphasize the importance of pilot studies and program evaluation in implementing any system change and recommend that any change be phased in over time to allow adjustments by the affected systems and entities. The Lumetra Study focused heavily on the reporting process to the MBC that follows peer review. This bill does not address those issues, but it does attempt to resolve the report's recommendation that the process be redesigned to afford for greater fairness to the physician under review. One of the more significant changes to current law is the selection process for the 809 hearing officer; the bill affords for mutual agreement of either the officer or a third party selection service, but if this is not achieved, each side chooses candidates which are ranked and chosen according to score, and in case of a tie, by drawing lots. Suggested technical amendments . The committee recommends the following technical amendments: On page 5, line 36, after "those," insert "identified" On page 8, line 13, delete "F," and insert "Without limiting the foregoing, f" On page 8, line 20, delete "applicable bylaws of the peer review body," and insert "healthcare facility's medical staff bylaws" On page 8, line 29, after "strike," insert "up to" On page 9, line 3, delete "is required to occur," and insert "must be commenced" On page 9, line 26, insert "r" after "office" On page 9, line 28, delete "peer review body" and insert "medical staff" AB 120 Page 11 Related legislation . SB 58 (Aanestad) of 2009 makes various changes relating to the Business and Professions Section 805 reporting process. This bill is set for hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2009. SB 700 (Negrete McLeod) of 2009 defines peer review and changes what is included in the definition of peer review body. The bill also allows the Medical, Dental, or Osteopathic Boards of California to inspect and copy any peer review minutes or reports in a disciplinary proceeding that results in a Business and Professions Section 805 report. This bill is pending on the Senate floor. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Medical Association (sponsor) Opposition California Hospital Association Catholic Healthcare West Analysis Prepared by : Sarah Huchel / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301