medical staff bylaws

May 18, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        A registrant at our Complete Course for Medical Staff Leaders in New Orleans two weeks ago asked:

Appreciated the suggestion in the case study to hold an application incomplete if there remain questions and concerns, but couldn’t the Credentials Chair or another physician leader suggest that an applicant withdraw the application?

ANSWER:           They could.  However, such a suggestion must be done with care. Suggesting that an applicant withdraw could invite a contention from an applicant’s lawyer that leaders are attempting to talk an applicant out of a “right” to a hearing.  That’s not the case if there has not been a recommendation for “denial,” but dealing with the contention could consume valuable resources.  Instead of appearing to push the applicant to withdraw, it may be better to present the physician with the potential consequences of the options, including withdrawal, appealing a denial recommendation, or allowing the application to remain incomplete.  It is a best practice to have a framework of clear language in the bylaws or credentialing policy (premised on the applicant’s burden), that incomplete applications will not be processed; and any application that remains incomplete after information has been requested, and not fully provided after a stated period of time (30, 45 or 60 days), will be deemed to be withdrawn.  It is easier for someone to simply wait for the expiration of the time period than to have to formally write a letter of withdrawal.  If your documents don’t have that language, you can still use this technique by stating a time period in the letters posing questions and requesting information.  Add additional language to guide future credentialers, next time revisions are considered!

May 4, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        We have just received an application for Medical Staff appointment from a physician who has a history of alcohol abuse that caused him to lose his license.  While his license has been reinstated, how should we deal with the fact that at one point in time he lost his license?

ANSWER:            First check your Medical Staff Bylaws.  Many bylaws have threshold eligibility criteria that not only require that an applicant possess a current, unrestricted license, but also require that an applicant have never had his or her license to practice revoked or suspended by any state licensing agency.  Such an eligibility criterion would render this physician ineligible to apply for appointment.

However, that does not end the inquiry.  Most bylaws also have a process that may be followed to obtain a waiver of the threshold eligibility criteria.  If the physician wants to attempt to qualify for a waiver, he or she should be required to request a waiver in writing and provide the MEC with such information as the MEC may require to determine whether granting a waiver is in the best interest of the hospital and the community it serves.

The MEC should be reasonable and keep in mind that past alcohol or drug use is protected by the ADA.  However, that does not alter the fact that the burden remains on the applicant to satisfy the hospital’s eligibility criteria and, if requesting a waiver, to establish a reasonable basis for the requested waiver.  Whether a waiver is granted is discretionary, the burden remains on the applicant, and an application is incomplete and should not be processed unless the waiver has been granted.

April 20, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

QUESTION:        Our current Medical Staff Bylaws state that in order to be eligible for reappointment and renewal of clinical privileges, an individual must have “completed all medical records” during the previous appointment term.  However, even if an individual was compliant 100% of the time, on the date the application was filed, not all of the individual’s medical records would be complete, as some would be outstanding.  How do you resolve that issue?

ANSWER:            We have had several hospitals that we have worked with on Medical Staff Bylaws projects raise the issue that no one is, in fact, compliant with medical records all of the time.  Therefore, no one would truly be eligible for reappointment if eligibility required that an individual have completed all medical records during the previous appointment term.  As referenced in the question, even if an individual was compliant with medical records requirements 100% of the time, on the date the application was filed, not all of the individual’s medical records would be complete (some would be outstanding, but not delinquent).

So, we recommend expanding on the “completed medical records” language by having the Medical Staff Bylaws state that in order to eligible for reappointment, an individual must have:

completed all medical records such that he or she is not delinquent, as per the Medical Staff Rules and Regulations and Hospital policy, at the time he or she submits the application for reappointment or renewal of clinical privileges and, further, was not deemed delinquent (sufficient to result in the relinquishment of privileges) more than _____ time(s) during the prior appointment term.

February 9, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        Our Credentials Committee recently considered a request for a waiver, submitted by a physician who does not satisfy our threshold criteria for appointment.  A few years back, this physician pled guilty to a felony battery charge, which ultimately led to a downward spiral in which he violated a restraining order and had his probation revoked.  The physician was forthcoming about his criminal background when he submitted his application, though his explanation largely deflected blame for the matters leading up to his arrest, guilty plea, and probation violation.

Before processing the physician’s request for a waiver, the Chief of Staff and CMO have recommended that the physician be required to provide substantial information (including arrest and/or court records) regarding these matters.  The Chair of the Credentials Committee disagrees and believes that the Credentials Committee, which has the responsibility pursuant to the Medical Staff Credentialing Policy to consider and make recommendations regarding waivers, should simply talk with the physician to get his side of the story and, if any questions remain after that, decide whether to ask for additional information.  Who is right?

ANSWER:            Most Medical Staff Bylaws or Credentialing Policies call on the Credentials Committee to consider and make a recommendation on requests for waivers of threshold eligibility criteria.  Often, the Credentials Committee is given broad discretion regarding what information to consider when reaching its recommendation.  And, as the individual charged with planning the agenda and activities of the Credentials Committee, the Chair would have the ability to exercise much discretion in determining how the committee would go about considering any request for a waiver.

The Credentials Committee may wish to review the application (or preapplication) submitted by the individual or any explanation submitted by the individual in conjunction with his or her request for a waiver.  It may also wish to speak with the individual regarding the waiver request and the circumstances that led to the individual being ineligible.  Therefore, the Chair’s expressed preference for talking with the individual is not totally out of line.

However, in almost any circumstance where a waiver is to be granted, the Credentials Committee is going to want to also verify the facts with third parties – to corroborate the story that is being told by the individual requesting a waiver.  The only exceptions to this would be when the circumstance is so obvious that no verification is required.  This may be the case, for example, if the individual does not have a coverage arrangement with another member of the medical staff, but explains that this is because no one else is practicing in the subspecialty in which he or she is requesting privileges.  Another example would be an individual whose office or residence is farther from the hospital than required by Hospital policy, in which case the individual may simply be providing the relevant addresses and explaining why the small discrepancy in distance will not affect his or her ability to respond appropriately to patients.

In the case at hand, where the individual is requesting a waiver related to his criminal history, it is hard to imagine any scenario where the Credentials Committee, MEC, or Board could proceed in processing the request for a waiver without verifying the facts of the matter from third party sources.  If the medical staff leaders or hospital failed to conduct this verification, how could they later justify such inaction (for example, in a court case brought by a patient or staff member who alleged to have been harmed by the physician’s conduct)?  Merely taking the physician’s word for it seems especially unreasonable in light of the fact that his original explanation deflected blame.

So, who is right in this situation – the Chief of Staff and CMO (who want to request written documentation) or the Chair of the Credentials Committee (who wants to talk with the individual requesting the waiver)?  In the end, the answer is that both of them are right in some ways.  It is the Chair of the Credentials Committee who ultimately decides whether the matter gets placed on the Credentials Committee’s agenda and, if so, the information that is gathered in advance of the meeting to assist the Credentials Committee as it talks with the applicant.  But, the committee will not be able to do its job properly without obtaining substantial information to corroborate the physician’s story – and so the Chair would be wise to take the advice of the Chief of Staff and CMO and gather the relevant documents from the individual prior to the Credentials Committee meeting.

December 22, 2016

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        As we are preparing for a medical staff hearing, a member of our Medical Executive Committee asked why our Medical Staff Bylaws state that the Chief Executive Officer appoints the hearing panel and not the Chief of Staff since it’s the Chief of Staff who knows most of the members of the medical staff.  We are trying to figure out whether this was a typo or not.  Should the Chief of Staff appoint the panel?

ANSWER:           No – that’s not a typo!  While we do still sometimes see bylaws which assign the Chief of Staff the responsibility to appoint the hearing panel (and worse yet, occasionally it’s the whole Medical Executive Committee that does so), it’s long been our recommendation that the CEO or the CMO fulfill that responsibility – in consultation with the Chief of Staff.

This is because, generally speaking, the Chief of Staff, both in his/her role as a Medical Staff officer as well as a member of the MEC (the body that will most often be making the adverse recommendation that triggers a hearing) tends to be someone who is very intimately involved in the underlying matter that led to the hearing.  The Chief of Staff will frequently be the individual who engaged in collegial intervention and other progressive steps with the affected physician, who was involved in the development of any conditions or restrictions and, ultimately, is involved in the adverse recommendation made by the MEC as the chair of that committee.  When an involved Chief of Staff is then responsible for appointing the hearing panel and presiding officer, we have seen the argument made that the selections were biased in favor of the MEC and are not neutral  – which can lead to objections and legal challenges (both before and after the hearing) to the appointment of the panel.

While we know that these claims are largely groundless, it is very important to manage the appearance of fairness at all steps of the hearing process.  The goal is to isolate the volunteer physician leaders – like the Chief of Staff – from these types of claims and allegations as much as possible, which is why the CEO or CMO should appoint the panel after consulting with the Chief of Staff.

December 8, 2016

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        Our medical staff bylaws contain a provision stating that physicians automatically relinquish their appointment and clinical privileges if their license to practice medicine is suspended or revoked.  Do we have to report such automatic relinquishments to the National Practitioner Data Bank?

ANSWER:            No.  By way of background, we generally recommend that medical staff bylaws documents identify certain events that will lead to the automatic relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges.  Typically, this occurs if a member: (1) loses his or her license or insurance coverage; (2) is excluded from Medicare; (3) is arrested, charged, indicted, convicted, or pled no contest to certain crimes; (4) fails to complete his or her medical records; or (5) fails to provide certain information or attend a special meeting requested by the Medical Executive Committee or a similar committee.

When a member’s appointment and privileges are automatically relinquished pursuant to a provision in the medical staff bylaws documents, the action is considered to be administrative in nature.  That means there is no “professional review action” as defined by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, so there is no need for a report to the NPDB.  The latest edition of the NPDB Guidebook includes the following question and answer to clarify these situations:

Question:  A hospital automatically revoked a physician’s clinical privileges when the physician lost her license.  Should this action be reported?

Answer:  No. Administrative actions that do not involve a professional review action are not reportable to the NPDB. The revocation of clinical privileges is automatic because the practitioner no longer holds a license.  Regardless of the reason for the State medical board’s licensure action, the hospital’s revocation of privileges was not the result of a professional review action.  Therefore, the hospital’s action should not be reported to the NPDB.

 

September 29, 2016

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        Our Medical Staff Bylaws include a process whereby an individual who does not satisfy one of our threshold eligibility criteria for appointment and privileges can request a waiver.  Only if a waiver is granted by the Board is the individual’s application then processed.  When we write to individuals to inform them that they do not satisfy our criteria — and that their applications cannot be processed — should we also be informing them of the option to apply for a waiver and the process for doing so?

ANSWER:            Your question is a good one because it illustrates the tendency to want to point out additional avenues that individuals could pursue to achieve their goals (in this case, requesting a waiver).  And most MSSPs and Medical Staff leaders want to help individuals and want to make the process easier for everyone.  So, it seems natural to proactively offer up the waiver process in the very letter that informs the individual that they are ineligible for appointment pursuant to the threshold criteria set forth in the Medical Staff Bylaws or Credentials Policy.

What is important to keep in mind, however, is that the waiver process is one that should be used rarely — when exceptional circumstances exist and the individual has shown that he or she is at least as (if not more) qualified than applicants who do satisfy all of the threshold criteria.  To preserve the objective nature of the eligibility process — and the hospital’s and medical staff’s reliance on objective threshold criteria as the bare minimum level of qualification for appointment and — it is important that the threshold criteria be applied consistently to applicants.

While there is nothing patently wrong about informing all ineligible individuals of the fact that a waiver process exists, in our experience, institutions that do so are more likely to routinely grant waivers and to infuse the eligibility process with subjectivity.

Therefore, it is our recommendation that letters informing individuals of their ineligibility not routinely inform individuals of the waiver process.  This does not deny any particular individual the ability to request a waiver (if he or she inquires further about any avenues he or she may have to appeal your decision regarding his or her ineligibility).  But, it also does not invite every ineligible individual to request subjective consideration of their qualifications in lieu of the routine application of the objective threshold criteria.

If the hospital occasionally finds itself with an application from an individual who is ineligible, but who has revealed sufficient facts about the situation which rendered him or her ineligible to indicate that truly exceptional circumstances exist and a waiver might be appropriate — in that case, it may make sense to proactively inform the individual of the availability of a waiver process.