medical staff bylaws

August 29, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our Credentials Committee is reviewing a reappointment application for a medical staff member who has had some pretty significant behavioral issues over the past year.  We want to recommend that she be reappointed for less than a full two-year appointment term to reinforce the need to change her behavior, but some members of the committee think that it would be an “adverse recommendation” and give her the right to a hearing. Is it?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
The short answer is that whether or not a recommendation to grant appointment for less than two years (or three years for those hospitals that have made the switch to longer terms) is governed solely by the existing medical staff bylaws.  If your bylaws do not guarantee two-year appointment terms, and the grant of appointment for less than two years is not specifically listed as one of the things that gives an individual the right to request a hearing in the pertinent section of the bylaws, then no, it would not be considered adverse.

Arriving at this conclusion can be more challenging if, rather than listing specific, clear recommendations that trigger the right to a hearing, the bylaws instead provide that “any recommendation that adversely affects an applicant or member” gives the right to request a hearing.  Whether the hospital views a less than two-year appointment term as adversely affecting an individual or not could very well differ from the viewpoint of the medical staff member at issue.

Bottom line, medical staff bylaws should affirmatively state that medical staff appointment will be granted for “not more” than two (or three) years and should give the Credentials Committee and the Medical Executive Committee the clear ability to grant appointment terms of less than the relevant time period – without concerns that it constitutes an adverse recommendation.  A short-term appointment can be a helpful tool in the exact situation posed above – when medical staff leaders are trying to get someone’s attention, emphasizing the need to make changes during a shortened time period of more focused review.  It can also be helpful when a medical staff member is in the midst of a review process that will not be fully concluded before the current term expires, giving the ability to reappoint that individual on a short-term basis, pending the outcome of the relevant review process.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell at LMitchell@hortyspringer.com.

August 1, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
Our Medical Staff Bylaws allow the MEC or Board to be represented by a lawyer at a medical staff hearing only if the practitioner who requested the hearing is also planning to be represented by a lawyer. We recently went through a hearing where this caused some issues, because the physician who was the chair of the MEC at the time the Committee made its adverse recommendation was not available to present the MEC’s case at the hearing. No one else wanted to step up to advocate the MEC’s position at the hearing. Since the practitioner did not choose to be represented by his lawyer, we had to scramble to find someone to represent the MEC at the hearing. We wish we could have used our lawyer. Is there a better way to handle this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
There is a better way to handle this! You will be glad to know that neither the Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals nor the accreditation standards prohibit hospitals or their medical staffs from being represented by a lawyer at a hearing, even if the practitioner is not represented. Additionally, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), which grants a safe harbor for immunity for the hospital and those who engage in peer review activities on behalf of the hospital, does not prohibit the hospital or its MEC from having legal representation. The HCQIA does require you to permit the physician who requested the hearing to have legal representation at the hearing, and to provide notice to the physician of that (and other) rights to which he is entitled at the hearing. But if the physician fails to take advantage of those rights – including the right to be represented – there is no obligation on the part of the hospital or MEC to make the same sacrifice. So, it is completely within your discretion to amend the Medical Staff Bylaws to make representation at hearings a right of both parties (without regard to whether the opposing party decides to be represented). Of course, you should always check with your counsel first, so that any applicable state laws and regulations can be consulted (just in case those include more stringent hearing provisions).

While you are free to (and probably should) adopt Bylaws language that provides for a universal right to legal representation at medical staff hearings, you should consider a different course of action when conducting professional review activities that are part of the collegial, progressive steps of the peer review/professional practice evaluation processes. We have long recommended that the peer review process be conducted as it was originally intended: peer-to-peer, without the meddling of legal counsel. After all, the whole point of “peer” review has always been to ensure that those who have the clinical expertise and ethical/professional obligations of the medical profession are at the forefront of reviewing their colleagues’ work and assisting with continuous performance improvement. Lawyers play no role in this process. Having lawyers present at collegial conversations and interventions can only hamper conversation and increase defensiveness. It is sure to stifle the process.

For this reason, we have always recommended that Bylaws documents and peer review policies state that no lawyers are allowed (both for the peer reviewers and for those subject to the review process) at these types of meetings. Your policy might allow for rare exceptions to this general rule, where requested by the practitioner subject to review and for good reason, but only if the exception is agreed to by the committee/body conducting the peer review activity. Further, we recommend that such exceptions rarely be made. Importantly, however, if an exception is made to allow the practitioner to bring a lawyer to a meeting, the peer review body should also be granted the same exception (allowing its legal counsel to be present, if it so desired).

In sum, at a medical staff hearing, the practitioner will always be entitled to be represented by counsel if he or she wishes. Therefore, the MEC and Board are not in any way compromising the interests of the physician if the Bylaws provide them with the unqualified right to utilize counsel for representation at the hearing (regardless of whether the physician chooses to have legal representation). By contrast, in routine peer review activities at the Hospital, the practitioner will almost never be entitled to be represented by counsel and, in turn, it would be unfair to allow the MEC and Board to utilize legal representation at meetings that are held pursuant to that process – unless an exception has been made to the general rule, permitting the practitioner to bring counsel to a meeting.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Rachel Remaley at rremaley@hortyspringer.com

July 25, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
We are confused about whether an applicant for Medical Staff appointment and clinical privileges is entitled to a hearing because of his failure to disclose certain unfavorable information and our decision to not process his application.  The physician claims that he is entitled to a hearing.  How should we handle this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLIE CHULACK
While it is always important to consult requirements under state law, which may address situations when a hearing is required, your Medical Staff Bylaws or Credentials Policy (“Bylaws”) should clearly define the consequences for certain events and the circumstances that give rise to a hearing.  For example, if the physician failed to disclose an “accusation” filed against him by the state licensing board and such information is requested on the application, the Bylaws should spell out the results of failing to disclose such information requested on the application.  Specifically, the Bylaws should state that any misstatement in, or omission from, the application is grounds to stop processing the application. A decision not to process an application for these reasons should not entitle the applicant to a hearing or appeal (and this should be clear in your Bylaws).

With that in mind, it also makes sense to review your application forms to confirm that the application questions are seeking information that you need to make an informed decision about someone’s qualifications.  For example, your application should not only seek information on past actions by licensing boards, it also should ask for information on pending actions.  Confirm that the questions on the application form are consistent with provisions in the Bylaws with respect to the threshold eligibility criteria that someone must satisfy for eligibility for appointment.  If one of your threshold eligibility criteria requires an applicant to “have a current, unrestricted license to practice that has never been subject to any restrictions, conditions, or probationary terms and have never had a license to practice in any jurisdiction denied, revoked, restricted or suspended by a state licensing agency,” then there should be a corresponding question on the application seeking this information.

Finally, your Bylaws should place an obligation on members to notify the Medical Staff Office of any change in information provided as a part of the application and state that a failure to do so may result in administrative relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges.  This permits the Medical Staff and Hospital to evaluate any changes in an individual’s qualifications, weigh those changes against eligibility criteria, and assess the appropriateness of any applicable consequences under the Bylaws.  Unless state law requires it, an automatic relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges because of failure to continuously satisfy threshold eligibility criteria does not give rise to a Medical Staff hearing.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Charlie Chulack at cchulack@hortyspringer.com

July 11, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
A physician recently resigned employment with a group that’s affiliated with the hospital.  Is there anything we should consider with respect to the physician’s Medical Staff appointment and privileges?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY MARY PATERNI
Yes, you’ll want to evaluate whether the physician is still eligible for continued appointment and privileges under the Medical Staff Credentials Policy (or Bylaws).

Malpractice insurance is often provided through employers, so physicians who resign their employment often lose their malpractice coverage.  Most Medical Staff Credentials Policies state that such insurance is a threshold eligibility criterion for appointment and privileges and that physicians will “automatically relinquish” their privileges if they lose their insurance.  (If your Credentials Policy doesn’t say this, it should!)  So, one step is to determine if the physician has acquired new malpractice insurance.

Similarly, Credentials Policies often require physicians to have acceptable coverage arrangements to be eligible for appointment and privileges.  Resignation from a group may mean that those coverage arrangements are no longer in place, so the existence of appropriate coverage should be confirmed with the physician.

Finally, all the other eligibility criteria in the Credentials Policy should be reviewed to determine if the physician’s resignation from employment will cause the physician to be ineligible.  For example, some Credentials Policies require the physician to maintain an office within the hospital’s service area as a condition of being granted appointment and privileges.

On the employment side, a physician’s employment contract may contain an “incident and coterminous” provision saying that the physician’s privileges will automatically be resigned upon termination of the contract.  Similarly, the contract may include a restrictive covenant prohibiting the physician from practicing in a defined geographic area for a certain amount of time after the contract ends.  However, the employer (not the Medical Staff) is responsible for enforcing such contractual provisions.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Mary Paterni at mpaterni@hortyspringer.com.

April 25, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We caught wind of the fact that one of our surgeons was cited for boating under the influence (or “BUI” – yes, this is a thing in our state) last weekend.  Does our Medical Staff leadership need to take any action, or do we only need to act if we’ve observed problems in the hospital?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
A BUI or (more commonly) a DUI may reflect a momentary lapse in judgment or be the sign of a more significant problem.  Given this uncertainty and the potential risks to patients, we think it makes sense to speak with the individual about the BUI/DUI, gather any additional information that may be relevant, and decide if any further action is needed.  This approach should give you the information you need to make sure patients are kept safe.  It will also help you to determine if any steps should be taken in regard to your Medical Staff colleague.

Ideally, you have processes in place through your Medical Staff Bylaws and policies to help your physician leaders navigate these issues in a supportive, non-punitive manner.  If you do not, a practitioner health policy should be on your Medical Staff leadership’s “to do” list for this year, as impairment of all kinds (substance abuse, mental and physical health, disease, etc.) can occur at any time.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Ian Donaldson at IDonaldson@hortyspringer.com.

March 21, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have an applicant who is refusing to answer one of the questions on our application form because she says that her lawyer told her it could violate a settlement agreement that she has with another hospital.  We think that information is relevant to her request for appointment at our hospital because it involves actions on appointment and privileges.  Can we still ask for the information?  Should we ask for a letter from her lawyer?  Should the application be held incomplete?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
Yes! Credentialers have a legal duty to review all relevant information that has any bearing on the qualifications of an applicant for Medical Staff appointment and clinical privileges and cannot allow the legal interests of an applicant, in an unrelated matter, to interfere with that duty.  Accordingly, the Medical Staff Bylaws (or related policies) should state very clearly that every applicant bears the burden of submitting a complete application and of producing information deemed adequate by the hospital for a proper evaluation of current competence, character, ethics, and other qualifications and for resolving any doubts.

A similar issue arose in a 1997 case, Eyring v. East Tennessee Baptist Hospital, 950 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), in which a physician applicant refused to sign a release form authorizing a hospital where he had previously practiced to send information to another hospital where he had made an application.  The physician argued that he received legal advice that signing the release could compromise his lawsuit against the hospital, which had revoked his privileges.  The court held that because the physician had not provided the additional information that the hospital requested – regardless of the fact that a settlement agreement was in place – he had not submitted a complete application and, thus, under its Bylaws, the hospital was not required to process his application further.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell at LMitchell@hortyspringer.com.

March 7, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
A physician was invited to attend a collegial counseling meeting with the Chief of Staff and CMO, to discuss a recent case where his management of a patient’s care had been called into question.  The physician came to the meeting, but once he learned what we were going to talk about, he refused to proceed unless he could record the meeting on his cell phone.  He said that it was his intention to fully comply with the review, but that he’d been treated unprofessionally at similar, previous meetings and felt that he needed to take steps to protect himself.  What’s the right response to this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
I’m glad to hear that the physician you are dealing with intends to fully comply with your review process.  That’s a good starting point and may give you room to salvage this process, even though you have experienced an initial setback.  A few tips to consider:

First, it is a good idea to inform a practitioner about the general nature of the issue(s) that will be discussed at a collegial counseling session before the meeting.  In other words, inform the practitioner of the concern in the invitation to the meeting.  In some cases, it may even make sense to inform the physician of the concern and ask for specific information in writing.  This approach gives the practitioner a chance to learn about the concerns, work through initial feelings of surprise and defensiveness, gather thoughts, refresh memories, and prepare a thoughtful response.  And all of those things can set you up for a better (and more effective, in the long run) review process.  Even if you don’t intend to ask for the practitioner’s written comments, letting the practitioner know about the leadership’s concerns prior to a meeting almost always makes sense – so that they can arrive at the meeting fully prepared to discuss the matter at hand.  When would you not give advance notice of your concerns?  It can make sense to withhold that information if the leadership wants to see the practitioner’s reaction when informed about the matter under review (and use that observation to help weigh the practitioner’s credibility).  Also, if the practitioner has a long history of retaliatory behavior – or retaliation is a significant concern for some other reason – you may wish to withhold information about the nature of the matter under review until you get to the meeting itself.  That way, the leadership can give an in-person reminder to the practitioner about the importance of avoiding retaliatory behavior (and even have the practitioner sign an anti-retaliation agreement, if that is deemed necessary).

Even with advance notice of the issues of concern, some practitioners are going to be uncomfortable with the peer review process (after all, if you’ve never been in a leadership position, the process likely feels very foreign, and no one likes to receive criticism).  So, how can you deescalate a situation where the physician feels the need to record the process to protect his rights?  Consider stating in the notice/invitation who will be present at the meeting.  In other words, if the practitioner is being asked to meet with just the Chief of Staff and CMO, say so in the invitation.  And if they are acting on behalf of a committee (e.g., a Leadership Council or MEC), state that as well.  If the committee is one charged with implementing the Medical Staff’s collegial, progressive steps of peer review – and does not manage disciplinary matters – consider stating that as well.  That way, the physician knows early on that he is meeting with a committee for a collegial discussion that is not intended to result in any disciplinary recommendation or action.

Make sure that your Medical Staff Bylaws (or related Medical Staff governance documents/policies) include provisions stating that attorneys are not permitted to be present at any meetings between hospital/medical staff leaders and practitioners, nor are any recordings of such meetings permitted to be made (instead, legal counsel and recordings are permitted only during medical staff hearings and appeals).  Consider informing practitioners of the rules against lawyers/recordings in the invitation to meetings.  Doing so can prevent the physician from spending the time and money to arrange to have a lawyer present, only to find that you have no intention of letting the person into the room.  And, if you have communicated your “no recording” rule to the practitioner prior to the meeting, you won’t have to feel so awkward if you feel that you must ask for mobile phones and/or other recording devices to be left outside the room (to prevent surreptitious recording).  Nor will you have to feel bad canceling the meeting if the physician refuses to proceed without making a recording (or having a lawyer present).

Finally, while the above steps are likely to help avoid misunderstandings and disagreements about the procedures that will be followed, it is important that leaders have enforcement tools they can call upon if necessary.  So, your Medical Staff Bylaws (or related Medical Staff governance documents/policies) should specify that if the physician refuses to attend and participate in the meeting without making a recording, then this will constitute his refusal to attend a mandatory meeting.  Your Bylaws should go on to state that the failure to attend a mandatory meeting will result in the automatic/administrative relinquishment of medical staff membership and all clinical privileges until such time as the practitioner attends a rescheduled meeting.  We would suggest setting a time limit for compliance – for example, by stating that if the practitioner has not resolved the automatic/administrative relinquishment (by attending the meeting) within 30 days, that will be deemed to constitute his automatic resignation of medical staff membership and privileges (meaning that any future request to practice at the hospital would not occur via reinstatement from automatic/administrative relinquishment but would, instead, require an application for initial appointment).  If this all seems like “a big to do” over not attending a meeting, know that the intention of this sort of Bylaws language is to never have to invoke it.  It is reasonable for medical staff leaders to expect that when they volunteer to take on leadership roles (often without any pay) and agree to spend their free time furthering patient safety, quality, and standards of professionalism in the hospital, they have every right to expect that their colleagues will meet them half-way.  And that includes attending meetings when requested and given adequate notice – and also complying with the rules that have been established by the medical staff to promote an informal, peer-led review process.  So, the great hope is that the automatic/administrative relinquishment language can be used, if necessary, to remind practitioners of their obligations to be involved in the review process (in hopes that leaders never have to actually enforce it).

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Rachel Remaley at rremaley@hortyspringer.com.

February 1, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Recently, we have had several physicians on our medical staff refuse to consult on a case because the patient was covered by Medicaid.  The patient had been admitted to the hospital, so we knew it wasn’t an EMTALA issue, but they still needed to be seen by a specialist.  Have you seen this at other hospitals, and do you have any suggestions on how to handle this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
Perhaps not surprisingly, this issue has come up before.  In an effort to address it, we recommend including language in your Medical Staff Governance Documents to make it clear that, not only do physicians have an obligation to see all patients in the ED, but they also have an obligation to respond to requests for consult (regardless of the patient’s payor status) when they are on call.

For instance, you might spell out in the Bylaws that Active Staff members have a responsibility to serve on the ED on-call schedule, and to “accept inpatient consultations, when on call for the ED.”  Similar language could be added to the Bylaws with respect to other staff categories.

Additionally, the threshold criteria for appointment and clinical privileges could require individuals to “agree to fulfill all responsibilities regarding inpatients, including responding to requests for consult when serving on the ED on‑call schedule.”  The basic responsibilities and requirements of appointment should also include an agreement “to provide emergency call coverage, consultations, and care for unassigned patients.”  This language will help ensure appropriate coverage not only for the ED but also for inpatients who require specialty consultations.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Susan Lapenta at slapenta@hortyspringer.com.

November 30, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our hospital is part of a regional system, and while there had been some low-level discussions about whether we may want to have a unified medical staff, the consensus was that we aren’t there yet – however, there is a strong desire for our medical staff processes to become more integrated even if unification isn’t our ultimate outcome.  Are there options short of formally becoming one unified medical staff?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
Absolutely!  While one of the main objectives of medical staff unification is consistency in core processes such as credentialing, privileging and peer review – with the goal towards promoting a single standard of care and reducing the administrative burden for the medical staffs and their leaders – many of these benefits can be obtained even in the absence of a unified medical staff.

A good first step is having similar (or identical) policies for credentialing, privileging and peer review at each system hospital that use the same eligibility criteria for appointment and privileges and the same process for evaluating applications among similar types of hospitals.  The same is true for policies governing clinical peer review, professionalism and health.  Consistent bylaws, policies and procedures across the system help the medical staff leaders to do their jobs, and are also helpful for members of the medical staffs who may practice at more than one system hospital to know what the rules are.

Even if a system has the same process for credentialing, privileging and peer review and has adopted the same standards for these activities, there remains the potential for different outcomes when different committees are making decisions.  Steps that the system and its medical staffs can take to address this concern – short of unification – include things such as:

  • Utilizing a central Credentials Verification Office to ensure each medical staff gets the same information about applicants;
  • Utilizing a system (or regional) Credentials Committee, which includes representation from all relevant hospitals, to avoid inconsistent recommendations being made by individual Credentials Committees on practitioners who are applying to more than one system hospital. The same goal can be accomplished in the peer review process by utilizing a system Peer Review Committee – a process that can be even more helpful when system hospitals include much smaller facilities that may have fewer individuals able to serve on such committees; and
  • Incorporating provisions into the medical staff bylaws/credentials policies for each system hospital which state that certain types of significant actions that directly implicate a practitioner’s qualifications to practice – such as performance improvement plans, precautionary suspensions, automatic relinquishments and final actions by the board – become effective immediately at each system hospital where the individual practices, unless the automatic action is waived by the “receiving” hospital’s MEC and the Board.

While these steps don’t achieve the same level of consistency that a unified medical staff would, they are definite steps along the “continuum of integration” that most systems are exploring and implementing.  Also, as the medical staff sees these integration steps in action, they can also help to quell the concerns that are sometimes voiced about possible unification and can be good first steps towards that goal.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell lmitchell@hortyspringer.com.

August 31, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Can a physician assistant or nurse practitioner sign off on an EMTALA transfer certification?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY DAN MULHOLLAND:
The EMTALA regulations at 42 CFR §489.24(e)(1)(ii) allow a “qualified medical person” such as an N.P. or P.A. to sign the transfer certification if a physician is not physically present in the emergency department at the time an individual is transferred.  The regulation reads as follows:

(B)       A physician (within the meaning of Section 1861(r)(1) of the Act) has signed a certification that, based upon the information available at the time of transfer, the medical benefits reasonably expected from the provision of appropriate medical treatment at another medical facility outweigh the increased risks to the individual or, in the case of a woman in labor, to the woman or the unborn child, from being transferred.  The certification must contain a summary of the risks and benefits upon which it is based; or

(C)       If a physician is not physically present in the emergency department at the time an individual is transferred, a qualified medical person (as determined by the hospital in its bylaws or rules and regulations) has signed a certification described in paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B) of this section after a physician (as defined in Section 1861(r)(1) of the Act) in consultation with the qualified medical person, agrees with the certification and subsequently countersigns the certification.  The certification must contain a summary of the risks and benefits upon which it is based.

Therefore, while an N.P. or P.A. can sign an EMTALA transfer certification if they have been categorically designated as a “qualified medical person” in the medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations, a physician needs to countersign it.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Dan Mulholland at dmulholland@hortyspringer.com.