(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to provide for a comprehensive study of the peer review process as it is conducted by peer review bodies defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 805, in order to evaluate the continuing validity of Section 805 and Sections 809 to 809.8, inclusive, and their relevance to the conduct of peer review in California.

(b) The Medical Board of California shall contract with an independent entity to conduct this study that is fair, objective, and free from bias that is directly familiar with the peer review process and does not advocate regularly before the board on peer review matters or on physician and surgeon disciplinary matters.

Ask a business law question, get an answer ASAP!
Thousands of highly rated, verified business lawyers.
Click here to chat with a lawyer about your rights.

(c) The study by the independent entity shall include, but not be limited to, the following components:

(1) A comprehensive description of the various steps of and decisionmakers in the peer review process as it is conducted by peer review bodies throughout the state, including the role of other related committees of acute care health facilities and clinics involved in the peer review process.

(2) A survey of peer review cases to determine the incidence of peer review by peer review bodies, and whether they are complying with the reporting requirement in Section 805.

(3) A description and evaluation of the roles and performance of various state agencies, including the State Department of Health Services and occupational licensing agencies that regulate healing arts professionals, in receiving, reviewing, investigating, and disclosing peer review actions, and in sanctioning peer review bodies for failure to comply with Section 805.

(4) An assessment of the cost of peer review to licentiates and the facilities which employ them.

(5) An assessment of the time consumed by the average peer review proceeding, including the hearing provided pursuant to Section 809.2, and a description of any difficulties encountered by either licentiates or facilities in assembling peer review bodies or panels to participate in peer review decisionmaking.

(6) An assessment of the need to amend Section 805 and Sections 809 to 809.8, inclusive, to ensure that they continue to be relevant to the actual conduct of peer review as described in paragraph (1), and to evaluate whether the current reporting requirement is yielding timely and accurate information to aid licensing boards in their responsibility to regulate and discipline healing arts practitioners when necessary, and to assure that peer review bodies function in the best interest of patient care.

(7) Recommendations of additional mechanisms to stimulate the appropriate reporting of peer review actions under Section 805.

(8) Recommendations regarding the Section 809 hearing process to improve its overall effectiveness and efficiency.

(9) An assessment of the role of medical professionals, using professionals who are experts and are actively practicing medicine in this state, to review and investigate for the protection of consumers, allegations of substandard practice or professional misconduct.

(10) An assessment of the process to identify and retain a medical professional with sufficient expertise to review allegations of substandard practice or professional misconduct by a physician and surgeon, if the peer review process is discontinued.

(d) The independent entity shall exercise no authority over the peer review processes of peer review bodies. However, peer review bodies, health care facilities, health care clinics, and health care service plans shall cooperate with the independent entity in providing raw data, information, and case files as requested in a mutually agreeable timeframe.

(e) The case files and other information obtained by the independent entity shall be confidential. The independent entity shall not release the case files or other information it obtains to any individual, agency, or entity, including the board, except as aggregate data, examples, or in the final report submitted to the board and the Legislature, but in no case shall information released under these exemptions be identifiable in any way or associated with, or related to, a specific facility, individual, or peer review body.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, information obtained by the independent entity from a peer review body or from any other person or entity and information otherwise generated by the independent entity, including, but not limited to, raw data, patient information, case files or records, interviews and records of interviews, proceedings of a peer review body, and analyses or conclusions of the independent entity, shall not be subject to discovery or to a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum and shall not be admissible as evidence in any court of law in this state. The information described in this subdivision shall be subject to all other confidentiality protections and privileges otherwise provided by law. The independent entity and its employees and contractors shall assert all of the protections for the information described in this subdivision that may apply in order to protect the information from disclosure. However, nothing in this section shall affect provisions of law relating to otherwise admissible material obtainable from sources other than the independent entity.

(g) The independent entity shall report to the peer review body any information it obtains from the peer review body that the independent entity determines should have been reported pursuant to Section 805. The independent entity shall include with the report a clear explanation of the reasons it determined that the information warrants a report under Section 805. If the peer review body agrees with the independent entity’s determination, the peer review body shall report the information pursuant to Section 805 without being subject to penalties under subdivision (k) or (l) of Section 805, if the peer review body makes the report to the board within 30 days of the date the independent entity reported its determination to the peer review body, unless additional time is required to afford due process or fair hearing rights to the subject of the report as required by Section 805 and Sections 809.1 and following.

(h) The independent entity shall work in cooperation with and under the general oversight of the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California and shall submit a written report with its findings and recommendations to the board and the Legislature no later than July 31, 2008.

(i) Completion of the peer review study pursuant to this section shall be among the highest priorities of the Medical Board of California, and the board shall ensure that it is completed no later than July 31, 2008.

(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 223, Sec. 17. Effective January 1, 2007.)