Peer review law at stake in Minnesota

The state's Court of Appeals will decide whether statutes are meant to protect hospitals from negligent credentialing claims.

By Mike Norbut, AMNews staff. Dec. 5, 2005.

Physicians fear Minnesota's powerful peer review statutes could erode if the state's Court of Appeals recognizes a medical liability plaintiff's negligent credentialing claim against a hospital.

The state's peer review system, which was first established more than 30 years ago, provides confidentiality protections for hospitals and doctors who participate in discussions involving discipline or credentialing. The laws carry criminal penalties for organizations or individuals who disclose details about discussions that the law protects.

But the system is being challenged in a medical liability lawsuit that targets a pair of surgeons and the hospital that granted privileges to the admitting physician. Some in the medical community say allowing claims against the hospital could raise the specter that facilities might have to disclose details of confidential discussions to defend themselves. If that happens, the chances of physicians having frank discussions about their peers would rapidly diminish, and quality of care could be affected as a result, they said.

"The purpose of peer review organizations is to guarantee confidentiality," said Megan Fogelson, policy counsel for the Minnesota Medical Assn. "By eroding that or having the possibility that anyone can find out what was said, physicians are simply not going to participate."

Plaintiff attorneys, meanwhile, argue that if a hospital deviates from accepted credentialing standards and grants admitting privileges to a physician who has questionable qualifications, that facility should be held accountable in a medical liability claim.