|
What we believe in
|
PREAMBLE
The Health
Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 was developed as a
tool for permitting physicians to improve the quality of
their healthcare services and that of the hospital since
it was believed that they had the best means for
improving among themselves. The idea of the Health Care
Quality Improvement Act is credible in that the goal is
to ultimately maximize patient care by forcing
physicians to critique themselves in the spirit of
academic excellence. Unfortunately over time, there has
been an abuse of this law by specific hospitals and
institutions as well as by physicians who are utilizing
some of the good elements of the law or their own
personal gain. The Center for Peer Review Justice, Inc
is in favor of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (
HCQIA ) as well as peer review which is a form of
dialogue which is intended for doctors to help one
another deliver better health care to the public. The
objectives of the Center are as follows:
OBJECTIVE
- To inform the public and other
health care professionals at large regarding the intent
of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and its
current potential misuses with regards to overall
patient care.
- Stop bogus review of one
physician by others who are compelled to find fault
because of anticompetitive motives.
- Provide advocacy to physicians
and patients who are being victimized by sham peer
review.
- Eliminate sham peer review
that damage excellent doctors and does great disservice
to our honored profession and to the patients who put
their trust in us.
- To support changes in hospital
bylaws and to rotate committee members, thereby
lessening the chance of politicizing their positions on
these hospital committees.
- To support changes in hospital
to equalize the playing field by placing "burden of
proof" on the hospital attempting to remove a physician
except in cases of drug and alcohol abuse.
- To attempt to make "peer
review" a process which cannot be used for political
means or purposes.
- To remove immunity from those
physicians and administrators who attempt to maliciously
injure a physician in a peer review hearing.
- To force hospitals to accept
physicians who have been rejected by their peer review
committees if they are exonerated by the State.
- To require external peer
review critique regarding any ad hoc committee meetings
and/or questionable summary suspension of a physician
except those with obvious drug or alcohol problems.
- To modify hospital bylaws to
give the final say of a peer review hearing to the
hearing panel and not back to the hospital administrator
or the trustees, or medical executive committee.
- To allow all "privileged
information" be submitted and reviewed by the hearing
panel at the time of any peer review hearing.
- The individual state licensing
boards should be the only authorized body to submit
physician names to the National Practitioner's Data
Bank.
- The State licensing boards
should require a hospital to remove any adverse
decisions from the National Practitioner's Data Bank if
the physician is exonerated by their state medical
board.
|
|
|
Sign Up for Alerts
Just provide your email for the Latest
News!
Your personal information will be kept in strict confidence
and only used to answer your questions or update you on events.
|
|
|
|
Thank You's
Testimonials |
|
|
|
Articles /Editorials |
|
|
|