BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 672
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
672 (Hernandez)
As Amended May 13, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Adds "pharmacist" to the existing list of medical
professionals whose peer review proceedings and records are
exempt from civil discovery and required testimony.
SB 672
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1)Exempts from civil discovery requests the peer review
proceedings and records of various medical professionals.
Specifies that any person in attendance at a meeting of any of
these organized committees shall not be required to testify as
to what transpired at that meeting.
2)Specifies that the prohibition against discovery and testimony
as to peer review records and proceedings does not apply to
the statements of a person at a peer review meeting if that
person is a party to an action or proceeding, the subject
matter of which was reviewed at the meeting, or to a person
requesting staff privileges, or in an action against an
insurance carrier alleging bad faith by the carrier in
refusing to accept a settlement offer within the policy
limits.
3)Requires a pharmacy, as defined, to establish a quality
assurance program that shall, at a minimum, document
medication errors attributable, in whole or in part, to the
pharmacy or its personnel. Specifies that records generated
for and maintained as a component of a pharmacy's ongoing
quality assurance program shall be considered peer review
documents and not subject to discovery in any arbitration,
civil, or other proceeding, except as provided.
4)Defines "peer review," for purposes of the healing arts, to
mean a process by which a peer review body reviews basic
qualifications, staff privileges, employment, medical
outcomes, or professional conduct of medical professionals in
order to make recommendations for quality improvement or
education; determine whether a medical professional may
continue to practice, or determine the parameters of that
practice; assess and improve the quality of care rendered in a
SB 672
Page 3
health care facility, clinic, or other setting providing
medical services; or to engage in other activities, as
specified. Requires the medical chief of staff, executive
officer, medical director or other administrator of a peer
review body to file a report with the appropriate licensing
board, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: Existing law provides for the establishment of peer
review committees in order to evaluate the performance of
licensed medical professionals, assess and improve the quality
of medical care, and, if necessary, determine whether a medical
professional may continue to practice. Medical peer review
bodies must submit reports to their appropriate licensing boards
whenever taking disciplinary action, including the denial of
staff privileges or employment to a medical professional.
Because an effective peer review process is essential to patient
safety and quality of care, the Legislature has exempted medical
peer review records from the usual rules governing the discovery
and admissibility of evidence in litigation. Evidence Code
Section 1157, in particular, expressly exempts from discovery
the peer review proceedings and records of many different
medical professionals: doctors, dentists, podiatrists,
dieticians, psychologists, marriage and family therapists,
clinical social workers, veterinarians, chiropractors, and
acupuncturists, among others. Evidence Code Section 1157 also
specifies that any person in attendance at a meeting of any of
these organized committees cannot be required to testify as to
what transpired at that meeting. The policy rationale for
exempting medical peer review records and not compelling
testimony from peer review participants is to encourage maximum
candor in the evaluation of medical professionals. However,
pharmacists are notably absent from the list of medical
professionals currently covered by Evidence Code Section 1157.
SB 672
Page 4
This non-controversial bill would add pharmacists to the list of
medical professionals whose peer review records are exempt from
discovery requests. Although pharmacists are not among the
medical professionals listed in the existing provisions of the
Evidence Code, their peer review and quality control records are
already exempted from discovery requests under provisions of the
Business and Professions (B&P) Code. However, the B&P Code
provisions only apply to pharmacists who practice in a
"pharmacy," which is generally defined as the physical premises
of a licensed pharmacy. The B&P Code provisions do not apply,
therefore, to other pharmacists - especially certified "advanced
practice pharmacists" - who work outside of a pharmacy in a
hospital or clinical setting, often in collaboration with other
health care providers. Because board recognition of "advanced
practice pharmacists" came about relatively recently, with the
enactment of SB 493 (Roger Hernández), Chapter 469, Statutes of
2013, the provisions of the B&P Code Section (that has not been
amended since it was enacted in 2000) exempting pharmacy peer
review records, do not apply to them. Peer review records
relating to advanced practice pharmacists, therefore, are
protected by neither the provisions of the B&P Code, nor the
Evidence Code. This bill sensibly addresses this gap by simply
adding pharmacists - whether advanced practice pharmacists or
those practicing in a traditional pharmacy - to the list of
medical professionals whose peer review records are generally
exempted from discovery and whose testimony cannot be compelled
under the Evidence Code.
Analysis Prepared by:
Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0001020
SB 672
Page 5