Special report on medical staff relationships. Ninth Circuit buttresses peer review immunities.

Health care law newsletter Pub Date : 1994-11-01
I Penner
{"title":"Special report on medical staff relationships. Ninth Circuit buttresses peer review immunities.","authors":"I Penner","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Following on the heels of Austin, the Fobbs and Smith decisions may result in a significant reduction in the number of federal antitrust claims filed by aggrieved physicians in the context of peer review actions. However, by permitting claims of discrimination and conspiracy to go forward in the Fobbs case, the Ninth Circuit may have encouraged the filing of more suits against peer reviewers based on these types of claims, rather than on antitrust theories. In order to benefit from HCQIA's immunities, medical staffs are once again admonished to review, and revise when necessary their medical staff bylaws and peer review policies to provide for adequate notice and hearing, and to assure that peer review participants are well informed about and carefully comply with all of HCQIA's requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":79604,"journal":{"name":"Health care law newsletter","volume":"9 11","pages":"15-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health care law newsletter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following on the heels of Austin, the Fobbs and Smith decisions may result in a significant reduction in the number of federal antitrust claims filed by aggrieved physicians in the context of peer review actions. However, by permitting claims of discrimination and conspiracy to go forward in the Fobbs case, the Ninth Circuit may have encouraged the filing of more suits against peer reviewers based on these types of claims, rather than on antitrust theories. In order to benefit from HCQIA's immunities, medical staffs are once again admonished to review, and revise when necessary their medical staff bylaws and peer review policies to provide for adequate notice and hearing, and to assure that peer review participants are well informed about and carefully comply with all of HCQIA's requirements.

关于医务人员关系的特别报告。第九巡回法院支持同行评议豁免。
继奥斯汀案之后,福布斯和史密斯案的判决可能会导致在同行评议行动的背景下,受侵害的医生提出的联邦反垄断索赔数量显著减少。然而,通过允许在Fobbs案中提出歧视和共谋的指控,第九巡回法院可能鼓励了更多基于这类指控而不是基于反垄断理论的针对同行评议人的诉讼。为了从HCQIA的豁免中受益,医务人员再次被告诫要审查并在必要时修改其医务人员章程和同行评审政策,以提供充分的通知和听证,并确保同行评审参与者充分了解并认真遵守HCQIA的所有要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信