Profession

California law extends whistle-blower protections

The California Medical Assn. says the changes will stop retaliatory peer review and other actions to punish doctors who report problems.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel — Posted Jan. 14, 2008

Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin

Medical staff members in California are getting protection from retaliation for filing formal complaints against health facilities about subpar treatment or conditions. The medical and hospital communities disagree about whether this change to the state's health care whistle-blower law will interfere with peer review.

The California Medical Assn. pushed to expand the law to let medical staff doctors sue a hospital if they suspect unfair treatment for reporting quality problems to the facility, its medical staff, or a government or accrediting body. The statute previously applied just to patients, nurses and "other health care workers." The change was set to take effect Jan. 1.

"What really prompted this was the fear that patient care was being compromised by the inability of physicians to come forward when they had concerns about the treatment of patients," said Brett Michelin, the CMA's associate director of government relations.

He cited examples of doctors having research grants taken away or office leases terminated for reporting unnecessary procedures performed at a hospital. Unjustified peer review was another concern, Michelin noted.

"If peer review is, in fact, the form of retaliation, then doctors will be protected, and that is absolutely a legitimate goal of this legislation," he said. "But [peer review is] just one of many forms of retaliation that doctors need to be protected from, and we felt [the law] was justified to protect physicians' ability to stand up and report potential abuse."

However, the California Hospital Assn. argues the change in the law could do more harm than good when it comes to peer review.

The CHA argues the original whistle-blower statute was meant to apply primarily to hospital employees, which medical staff are not.

"Everybody wants quality of care and reporting methods in place," said Gail Blanchard-Saiger, a CHA attorney and vice president of labor and employment. "Our concern is [that] extending what was supposed to be employee protections to physicians has unintended consequences for the peer-review process."

For example, under the whistle-blower changes, medical staff members can file a retaliation claim against a hospital for alleged discrimination within 120 days of the physician's filing of a quality complaint, she said. This could prematurely stop any peer review activity that might arise after the report. It remains unclear whether a doctor could sue the peer review committee directly under the statute.

Blanchard-Saiger said other state laws already prohibit retaliation against physicians who advocate for medically appropriate health care for their patients. Doctors also qualify for federal whistle-blower protections, she said.

But some physicians felt those laws fell short when it came to filing a formal grievance against a health facility, according to the CMA. The whistle-blower statute allowed health care workers who prevailed in a retaliation lawsuit to qualify for reinstatement and reimbursement for lost income and legal costs. Those remedies now apply to medical staff members. The amendments also give medical staff members the added protection of any type of court order a judge finds necessary. These could include restoring a terminated contract or privileges during the peer-review process or blocking peer-review proceedings if a court finds them inappropriate, said Gregory Abrams, former CMA legal counsel, who assisted the association on the bill.

Peer review protected, doctors say

Still, there are safeguards in place to protect peer review, he said. A provision gives the court the discretion to block a doctor's request for peer-review-related documents as part of his or her discrimination claim until the hearings end.

Abrams said hospitals also can stop an unwarranted lawsuit against peer review through the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. The statute prohibits doctors from filing unfounded suits to chill free speech on public issues. The California Supreme Court in 2006 ruled that peer review serves such a public function.

Abrams said courts generally are reluctant to interfere with peer review. In addition, it would be difficult for a doctor to prove retaliatory peer review in the face of an anti-SLAPP motion, he noted. If the physician loses, he or she must pay the other party's attorney's fees.

"The doors to the court are very well-guarded against interrupting any peer-review proceeding," Abrams said.

The CHA's Blanchard-Saiger disagreed, saying the amended law conflicts with other statutes that ensure that peer review remains confidential and runs its course before doctors challenge the results. "The presumption is that [the peer review] is retaliation for the complaint, and participation might be chilled because of that scrutiny," she said. "And if the process has already started, can it continue?"

In addition, she contends the discovery provisions in the revised whistle-blower statute put an unnecessary burden on hospitals and medical staff to defend against potential disclosures of privileged peer-review-related materials. As for the anti-SLAPP remedy, Blanchard-Saiger said, "generating more litigation is not the best answer."

Back to top


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Speaking out safely

Recent changes to California's health care whistle-blower statute extend protections to medical staff physicians. The revisions include:

  • Allowing medical staff members to sue a health care facility if they suspect retaliation for formally reporting quality-of-care issues to the hospital, its medical staff or another agency responsible for accrediting the entity.
  • Providing for reinstatement of privileges or contract terms and reimbursement for lost wages and legal costs if a doctor prevails in his or her retaliation claim.
  • Permitting the court to issue an order to protect the doctor bringing the discrimination claim; actions could include stopping what the court deems unjustified peer review.
  • Giving the court the discretion to block doctors' discovery requests for peer-review-related documents while peer-review hearings are pending.

Back to top


ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISE HERE


Featured
Read story

Confronting bias against obese patients

Medical educators are starting to raise awareness about how weight-related stigma can impair patient-physician communication and the treatment of obesity. Read story


Read story

Goodbye

American Medical News is ceasing publication after 55 years of serving physicians by keeping them informed of their rapidly changing profession. Read story


Read story

Policing medical practice employees after work

Doctors can try to regulate staff actions outside the office, but they must watch what they try to stamp out and how they do it. Read story


Read story

Diabetes prevention: Set on a course for lifestyle change

The YMCA's evidence-based program is helping prediabetic patients eat right, get active and lose weight. Read story


Read story

Medicaid's muddled preventive care picture

The health system reform law promises no-cost coverage of a lengthy list of screenings and other prevention services, but some beneficiaries still might miss out. Read story


Read story

How to get tax breaks for your medical practice

Federal, state and local governments offer doctors incentives because practices are recognized as economic engines. But physicians must know how and where to find them. Read story


Read story

Advance pay ACOs: A down payment on Medicare's future

Accountable care organizations that pay doctors up-front bring practice improvements, but it's unclear yet if program actuaries will see a return on investment. Read story


Read story

Physician liability: Your team, your legal risk

When health care team members drop the ball, it's often doctors who end up in court. How can physicians improve such care and avoid risks? Read story

  • Stay informed
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn