Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank

1998 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 50-56
Author(s):  
Arthur I. Broder
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Health Care Quality Improvement ◽  
National Practitioner Data Bank

Quality Assurance Implications of Federal Peer Review Laws: The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank

1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Snelson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Health Care Quality Improvement ◽  
National Practitioner Data Bank

Patrick v. Burget, the landmark peer review case holding physicians liable under federal antitrust law for substantial damages caused by bad faith peer review, gave rise to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. As shown in the recent decision in Austin v. McNamara, the Act's conditional immunities may promote peer review. However, the Act also created the National Practitioner Data Bank, which may have a chilling effect on peer review. The quality assurance implications of each of these federal legal developments is analyzed.

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986: Its History, Provisions, Applications and Implications

1990 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-498
Author(s):  
Susan L. Horner
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Health Care Quality Improvement

Congress granted qualified immunity from liability for peer review participation to physicians, osteopaths and dentists, created a national practitioner data bank to track inept, incompetent or unprofessional physicians, and enacted procedural rules for due process, privilege restrictions, and reporting and disbursement of information. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 is now in full force, and peer review participants are anxious to cloak themselves with immunity from actions brought by health care professionals. Although its goals are worthy, HCQIA's effects remain to be seen. Serious loopholes appear to exist, warranting close monitoring and possibly early amendment of the Act. Cautious judicial assessment is needed, in order to prevent not only circumvention of the Act's requirements by artful litigants, but also use of the national data bank by health care entities as a pretext for denying privileges and escaping antitrust liability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document