What's happening
Writing a plain-English summary… Track this bill to get it by email.
Why it matters
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to health
- Committed to rules
- Advanced to third reading
- 2nd report cal.
- 1st report cal.749
- Referred to health
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Prohibits disclosure of testimony of a party to a health care quality assurance or peer review proceeding
In Assembly Committee · Codes · Sponsor Richard Gottfried
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the public health law and the education law, in relation to quality assurance and peer review activities
Purpose of the bill
To extend the confidentiality provisions relating to discovery of testimony to statements made by any person in attendance at peer review committees who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed during peer review committee meetings. The extension of the confidentiality is proposed to enhance the identification and correction of medical errors by physicians and other health care providers to protect the public health and reduce the incidence of avoidable medical errors.
Summary of provisions
This bill would amend section 2805-m of the Public Health Law and section 6527 of the Education Law to extend the confidentiality provisions relating to discovery of testimony to apply to statements made by any person in attendance at peer review committee meetings who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting.
Read the full memo (643 words)
Section 3 adds a new subdivision 50 to section 6530 of the education law. The new subdivision adds, to those activities which may constitute professional misconduct, failure to cooperate reasonably and in good faith with the quality assurance measures protected by the confidentiality provisions.
Justification
It is believed that incidents involving medical errors often go undetected and are under reported because physicians and other health care providers understand that they would potentially be exposed to future civil actions and any statements or information volunteered as part of the peer review process could be discovered and used against them in later court proceedings.
The objective of the discovery exclusion is to "enhance the objectivity of the review process" and to assure that medical peer review committees "may frankly and objectively analyze the quality of health services rendered." See Memorandum of Assembly Rules Committee, Bill Jacket, L. 1971, ch. 990, at 6. The Court of Appeals stated that "by guaranteeing confidentiality to quality review and malpractice prevention procedures, this provision is designed to encourage thorough and candid peer review of physicians, and thereby improve the quality of medical care." Logue v. Velez, 92 N.Y.2d 13,17,699 N.E.2d 365, 367 (1998).
However, both section 2805-m of the Public Health Law and section 6527 of the Education Law contain the same narrow exception that permits disclosure of statements given at an otherwise privileged peer review meeting by a party (medical provider) to a lawsuit which involves the same underlying conduct that is the topic of discussion at the meeting. Further, the courts have reinforced this exception by stating that "the evident purpose of this provision is to permit discovery of statements given by a physician or other professional in the course of a hospital's review of the facts and circumstances of an earlier incident which had given rise to a malpractice action." Logue v. Velez, 92 N.Y.2d 13,19,69 N.E. 2d 365, 368(1998-); see also Swartzenberg v. Trivedi, 189 A.D.2d 151,153 (1993), appeal dismissed, 82 N.Y.2d 749 (1993).
This exception compromises the effective utilization of the peer review process to enhance the quality of care and adequately detect and prevent medical errors.
Therefore, this legislation would improve the peer review process to promote quality assurance. By providing health care providers who are the subject of peer review proceedings confidentiality from discovery of testimony given at such proceedings, it is expected that medical errors will be more readily detected and addressed by increasing providers' willingness to submit information that is necessary to conduct properly and expeditiously peer review activities, absent the fear of later misuse of their statements by attorneys or the media.
Fiscal implications
None.
Legislative history
2009/2010 - S.2821 2007/2008 - S.4642-A 2005/2006 - S.764 2001/2002 - S.4629
Effective date
This act shall take effect immediately.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.