Dr. X is a young, charismatic, board-certified surgeon at the local hospital. While popular among her patients and non-surgical colleagues, to the established surgical "Old Guard," she appears somewhat of a threat. Her training in new advanced techniques, coupled with splendid bedside manner, has caused her practice to become quite busy. However, disruption in some well-established referral patterns has occurred, and business has been siphoned away from her older colleagues. . . . This hypothetical - but not uncommonly recurring - fact pattern demonstrates the destruction of a promising medical career, elimination of competition, promotion of status quo cronyism, and protection of bad faith peer review, without a scintilla of evidence that quality healthcare has been advanced in the process. Certainly, such perverse consequences were not what Representative Ron Wyden of Oregon had in mind when he introduced the HCQIA in 1986. Unfortunately, when policy decisions supported by the weight of the law create both unfair and inequitable results that trample physician property and due process rights, permit conflicts of interest and abuse of process, and fundamentally harm the public interest, then the question must be asked: is physician peer review immunity justified?
Charles R. Koepke M.D.,
Physician Peer Review Immunity: Time to Euthanize a Fatally Flawed Policy,
22 J.L. & Health
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/jlh/vol22/iss1/3