AMENDING THE HCQIA OF 1986
written by Edward Gray Davis , 12/22/02
Here are some suggestions for amending the HCQIA(42 USC Sec. 11101,et.seq.)
1) Sec. 11101(3) should be changed to read; This nationwide problem can be remedied through effective and fair professional peer review, but to ensure this, basic procedural due process rights shall be accorded the physician subject to the peer review process. Otherwise, the system could result in damaging the reputation and career of physicians being reviewed and could undermine the purpose of this Act by allowing physicians to base their decisions on prejudice, the desire to restrict the supply of physicians in the area, retaliation based on jealousy or their own incompetence and damage the public health by falsely designating competent physicians as incompetent and depriving the public of their services.
2) Sec. 11112(a)(3) should be changed to read : after adequate notice, including specific notice of the charges against the physician to be reviewed, and impartial hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved. (the language beginning with or after such other procedures is arbitrary and capricious and should be deleted).
3)Sec. 11112(a)(4) This paragraph should end after the first sentence. The second sentence which begins A professional review action shall be presumed to have met...... should be deleted.
4) Sec. 11112(b)(3)(D) should be changed as follows: In (D)(ii) the second sentence should be deleted. In addition a third subsection (iii) should be added. It should state: to receive notice of his or her right to appeal an adverse decision of the hearing to the Board of Medicine of the state involved and a form which directs him or her how and where to file such appeal within 30 days of receiving the adverse decision.
5) Sec. 11115(a) At the end of the paragraph the following sentence should be added: However no state law which prevents the physician from obtaining documents, witnesses or or any other material which is essential to his or her preparing a full and adequate defense shall be valid with respect to the peer review in question and shall not be allowed to interfere with the basic due process rights accorded the physician under review. Any such state law shall yield to the supremacy of this Federal Act and shall not be enforceable by the state with respect to any part of the professional peer review procedures as created and made enforceable pursuant to this Act.
Edward Gray Davis
2030 Meadowlake Ct.
Norfolk VA 23518
Tel: 757-855-4746