QUESTION: Our Medical Staff Bylaws require, as a threshold eligibility criterion, that an individual be board certified or become board certified within five years of joining the medical staff. A long-time medical staff member, about whom we have no quality concerns, recently allowed his board certification to expire. We notified him that he needs to recertify or will not be eligible to apply for renewal of appointment at the end of his current term. He said that he does not read the Bylaws that way and since he was board certified within five years of joining the medical staff, he satisfied the threshold criterion related to board certification. Is he right? We’ve always enforced the board certification requirement as requiring current certification.
ANSWER: Board certification has certainly become a contentious issue lately. There is no universal best practice regarding whether to require recertification or maintenance of certification – but what is important is that the Medical Staff Bylaws and related documents (such as the Credentials Policy, if you use one) be clear regarding what is required, so that no medical staff member will be caught off guard and the leadership will not have to spend its time engaged in disputes over interpretation.
The intention in your Bylaws language is clear to me (and probably everyone else who works in medical staff leadership and credentialing). When the Bylaws language was drafted, it was clearly meant to require current board certification by members, but to create an exception for those who are new to the organization, to give them time to “get up to speed” with your requirements. From a technical standpoint, however, any medical staff member could argue that he or she only needs to meet one of the requirements set forth in the applicable threshold criterion. That is, they either need to be board certified OR achieve certification within five years. Clearly, the physician at issue in your case is taking advantage of the way the provision was drafted to argue that he has satisfied the second requirement and, in turn, has fulfilled the certification requirement indefinitely (without any need to recertify or maintain certification).
So, can you enforce the requirement that individuals be currently board certified based on your existing language? The answer is not entirely certain. If you have a set precedent of consistently interpreting your Bylaws language as requiring certification that is current – and applying the five year exception provision only to new members of the medical staff – there is a good chance that you can take the position that the Bylaws language requires current certification. Nevertheless, because collegiality, transparency, and fairness are important in credentialing, it may make sense to at least consider whether the current situation can be dealt with in a way that pleases everyone. Could a one-time waiver be granted, thus allowing the physician whose certification has lapsed one additional appointment term to recertify? Doing so may keep the peace while the leadership works to adopt Bylaws language that clarifies this matter for everyone.
To that end, at this point, it would be wise to update the language of the Medical Staff Bylaws to more clearly state any requirements for recertification and/or maintenance of certification and to specify how lapses will be managed (immediately or at reappointment, for example). Further, most hospitals and medical staffs have, in recent years, moved away from Bylaws language requiring certification within a number of years after joining the medical staff. Consider instead adopting language stating that if an individual is not certified, but completed his or her training within the past [X number] of years, he or she will be eligible, but must become certified prior to that deadline or will become ineligible for renewal thereafter.