|
Edward Gray Davis
2030 Meadowlake Ct.
Norfolk VA 23518
Tel: 757-855-4746
graydavis@surfbest.net
graydavis3838@yahoo.com
12/22/02
Dear Sir:
Here are some suggestions for amending the HCQIA(42 USC Sec. 11101,et.seq.)
1) Sec. 11101(3) should be changed to read; This nationwide problem can
be remedied through effective and fair professional peer review, but to
ensure this, basic procedural due process rights shall be accorded the
physician subject to the peer review process. Otherwise, the system
could result in damaging the reputation and career of physicians being
reviewed and could undermine the purpose of this Act by allowing
physicians to base their decisions on prejudice, the desire to restrict
the supply of physicians in the area, retaliation based on jealousy or
their own incompetence and damage the public health by falsely
designating competent physicians as incompetent and depriving the public
of their services.
2) Sec. 11112(a)(3) should be changed to read : after adequate notice,
including specific notice of the charges against the physician to be
reviewed, and impartial hearing procedures are afforded to the physician
involved. (the language beginning with or after such other procedures
is arbitrary and capricious and should be deleted .)
3)Sec. 11112(a)(4) This paragraph should end after the first sentence.
The second sentence which begins A professional review action shall be
presumed to have met...... should be deleted.
4) Sec. 11112(b)(3)(D) should be changed as follows: In (D)(ii) the
second sentence should be deleted. In addition a third subsection (iii)
should be added. It should state: to receive notice of his or her right
to appeal an adverse decision of the hearing to the Board of Medicine of
the state involved and a form which directs him or her how and where to
file such appeal within 30 days of receiving the adverse decision.
5) Sec. 11115(a) At the end of the paragraph the following sentence
should be added:
However no state law which prevents the physician from obtaining
documents, witnesses or or any other material which is essential to his
or her preparing a full and adequate defense shall be valid with respect
to the peer review in question and shall not be allowed to interfere
with the basic due process rights accorded the physician under review.
Any such state law shall yield to the supremacy of this Federal Act and
shall not be enforceable by the state with respect to any part of the
professional peer review procedures as created and made enforceable
pursuant to this Act .
|
