What's happening
This bill amends laws to strengthen confidentiality for medical quality assurance and peer review activities, and requires good faith participation in such programs.
Why it matters
Expands confidentiality protections. for records and testimony related to medical quality assurance, peer review, and incident reporting, making it harder for these materials to be disclosed or used in lawsuits, except under limited conditions.
Clarifies that even parties involved in legal actions. (whose cases were reviewed by a quality assurance or peer review committee) are now also protected—their statements at such meetings are confidential and shielded from discovery, closing a potential loophole previously used to obtain this information.
Introduces a new professional misconduct standard. by requiring healthcare professionals to participate “reasonably and in good faith” in quality assurance, peer review, and incident reporting programs—failure to do so could now be grounds for disciplinary action, emphasizing the importance of active engagement in patient safety and quality improvement activities.
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
Protect Peer Review Testimony
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to health
- 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.
Protect Peer Review Testimony
In Assembly Committee · Health · Sponsor Richard Gottfried
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
1800
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
January 16, 2019
Introduced by Sen. RIVERA -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Health
AN ACT to amend the public health law and the education law, in relation to quality assurance and peer review activities
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision 2 of section 2805-m of the public health law, as amended by chapter 808 of the laws of 1987, is amended to read as follows:
2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, none of the records, documentation or committee actions or records required pursuant to sections twenty-eight hundred five-j and twenty-eight hundred five-k of this article, the reports required pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred five-l of this article nor any incident reporting requirements imposed upon diagnostic and treatment centers pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to disclosure under article six of the public officers law or article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules, except as hereinafter provided or as provided by any other provision of law. No person in attendance at a meeting of any such committee shall be required to testify as to what transpired thereat. [The] Furthermore, the prohibition relating to discovery of testimony shall [not] apply to the statements made by any person in attendance at such a meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting.
§ 2. The closing paragraph of subdivision 3 of section 6527 of the education law, as amended by chapter 257 of the laws of 1987, is amended to read as follows:
Neither the proceedings nor the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program nor any report required by the department of health pursuant to section twenty-eight
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD03364-01-9
S. 1800 2
hundred five-l of the public health law described herein, including the investigation of an incident reported pursuant to section 29.29 of the mental hygiene law, shall be subject to disclosure under article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules except as hereinafter provided or as provided by any other provision of law. No person in attendance at a meeting when a medical or a quality assurance review or a medical and dental malpractice prevention program or an incident reporting function described herein was performed, including the investigation of an incident reported pursuant to section 29.29 of the mental hygiene law, shall be required to testify as to what transpired thereat. [The] Furthermore, the prohibition relating to discovery of testimony shall [not] apply to the statements made by any person in attendance at such a meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting.
§ 3. Section 6530 of the education law is amended by adding a new subdivision 50 to read as follows:
50. Failure to cooperate and participate, reasonably and in good faith, in the quality assurance, incident reporting, and peer review programs, activities, requirements and procedures covered by the confidentiality provisions of section twenty-eight hundred five-m of the public health law or clause (a), (b), (d) or (e) of subdivision three of section sixty-five hundred twenty-seven of this title.
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
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
To extend the confidentiality provisions relating to discovery of testi- mony 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.
Summary of provisions
Section one and two of this bill amend § 2805-m of the Public Health Law and § 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 (619 words)
Section three adds a new subdivision 50 to § 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 confidential- ity provisions.
Section four provides the effective date.
Justification
It is believed that incidents involving medical errors often go unde- tected and are under reported because physicians and other health care providers understand they could 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 Cacket, L. 1971, ch. 930, 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 the Public Health Law and 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. 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 profes- sional in the course of a hospital's review of the facts and circum- stances of an earlier incident which had given rise to a malpractice action." Logue v. Velez, 92 N.Y.2d 13,19,69 N.F. 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 effec- tive utilization of the peer review process to enhance the quality of care and adequately detect and prevent medical errors.
This legislation would improve the peer review process and ultimately protect the public health and reduce the incidence of avoidable medical errors. 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 readi- ly 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.
Legislative history
2015-2016: S.4698
2013/2014: S.2071
2011/2012: S.1207
2009/2010: S.2821
2007/2008: S.4642-A
2005/2006: S.764
2001/2002: S.4629
Fiscal implications
None.
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.