HOSPITAL MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (MEC) AND THE PEER REVIEW INVESTIGATION AND THE HEARING PROCESS

Here is an informative webinar on how to protect yourself in Peer Review Hearing: How to Navigate - Hospital Medical Executive Committees, Peer Reviews, Investigations, and Bylaws. From a Physician's Attorney's perspective.

Grounds for an Investigation :

An Investigation may be conducted if the MEC determines that it has reasonable grounds to believe that a Practitioner may have exhibited any of the following:

1. General clinical incompetence.
2. Substandard care or treatment of one or more specific patients, even if the substandard care or treatment did not harm the patient;
3. Violation of any standard of conduct established by the Medical Staff, the Hospital, the Practitioner's professional society, or unit of government; Examples of such standards of conduct include the Medical Staff Governing Documents and Operational Documents; Hospital policies; ethical standards of the member's profession; federal, state, or local statutes, rules, and regulations.
4. Behavior or conduct that adversely affects or could be reasonably anticipated to adversely affect the safety or welfare of one or more persons associated with the Hospital, including patients, staff, and visitors; and
5. Conduct that adversely affects or could be reasonably anticipated to adversely affect the safe and orderly operation of the Hospital.

To sum up, there are typically three potential categories of reasons as to what the investigation is about: Physical or Mental Impairment, Disruptive Behavior or Clinical Competence has come under question.  Florida Statute require the reporting  within 30 days of a such a findings to the Division of Health Quality Assurance, regardless of the pendency of an appeal. However, it's required to ensure a fair hearing process for all Medicare Conditions of Participation. Eventually the state notifies all other institutions that staff privileges have been revoked or terminated, and all others are then required to respond accordingly, and it can be in unison. This also means that the peer review actions must be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).  These are severe and extreme consequences for many physicians that get tangled in such MEC's web.  So, what can you do to prevent or address a MEC investigation:

Informal Resolution of Physician Problems

Your first option is an Informal Resolution. Sometimes there are physician problems that can be addressed early on, and the harsh repercussions avoided. There are progressive steps that can be taken, such as (i) collegial intervention, (ii) education, (iii) mentoring, (iv) counseling, (v) second opinion requirement, (vi) proctoring, and (vii) behavior boundaries courses. Typically, a hospital department chair or the chief of staff can approach a physician and offer them counseling or a warning on the issue. Sometimes the physician will be asked to complete a performance improvement plan or some sort of remediation measures. When a physician is asked to take such measures, it is a great time to consult with an attorney and get an idea on how to navigate these waters. If the conduct is serious, the informalities will change to formalities quickly. A physician can be suspended for up to 14 days without notice; however, if the suspension is 30 days or more, it is then required to be reported to the NPDB and a disciplinary hearing process ensues.

Formal Due Process in Peer Review Hearings

In accordance with all hospital medical staff bylaws, the physician is entitled to due process. The fair hearing process goes something like this:

Phase I – Notice of Reasons is issued – where the notice must state with specificity the way the physician failed to meet the requirements. HERE THE PHYSICIAN MUST INVOKE THE FORMAL HEARING PROCEDURES.

Phase II – Notice of Hearing is issued by the triggering of the formal hearing process, and there must be at least 30 days provided to allowed preparation.

Phase III – Prehearing discovery is allowed such that a document exchange can take place and witness disclosure is afforded to both sides so they know whose testimony will be pertinent to the case.

Phase IV – A Hearing Officer is appointed by agreement from both sides, who presides like a judge and helps manage the presentation of evidence and the hearing panel members. A hearing officer can also help resolve discovery disagreements.

Phase V – The Hearing Panel then hears the case, and they evaluate it for sufficiency of evidence and reasonableness and disciplinary action.

Note that the hearing panel must not have a self-interest at stake and cannot be a direct competitor of either side.

Once the case is heard by the Hearing Panel, and it is decided, the non-prevailing side can then take the case to court. A lawsuit then ensues, and the trial is had in a regular court of law. In certain ways, this ends up being the same case that is litigated twice over. The hospitals have done this time and again and they are well experienced. The individual physician is almost always at a disadvantage, but they have to navigate through this in a smart way.

If you are getting warnings or disciplined, we encourage you to engage an attorney who understands both how the inside of the hospital works and what your options are from a physician perspective.

Here is an informative webinar on how to protect yourself in Peer Review Hearing: How to Navigate - Hospital Medical Executive Committees, Peer Reviews, Investigations, and Bylaws.

"How To Navigate - Hospital Medical Executive Committees, Peer Reviews, Investigations, And Bylaws" .

If it wasn't for lawyers we would not need lawyers.  All large healthcare organizations protect themselves.

Protect your Professional and Financial Interest by getting proper legal representation.