Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced it would address whether the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA or Act) protects documents in hospital credentialing files. This decision could significantly impact how hospitals conduct crucial credentialing and recredentialing activities, given the need for both candid and forthright information from peer physicians and the danger that such feedback could be later misused in medical malpractice actions.
The Peer Review Privilege
Enacted in 1974, the PRPA protects the “proceedings and documents of a review committee” from discovery or introduction into evidence. The Act provides immunity from liability for individuals providing information to a review organization [1] and ensures that review committee records “shall be held in confidence.” [2]
In enacting the PRPA, the Pennsylvania legislature had the goal of “providing for the increased use of peer review groups by giving protection to individuals and data who report to any review group.” [3] Pennsylvania courts have further commented that the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute was to “(1) improve the quality of care rendered, (2) reduce morbidity and mortality; and (3) keep within reasonable bounds the cost of healthcare.” [4] The immunity and confidentiality provisions are based on the belief that, “the medical profession itself is in the best position to police its own activities,” [5] and were enacted to “foster free and frank discussions by review organizations.” [6]
Importantly, the PRPA contains definitions as to “peer review” and “review organizations” that govern the Act. The Act defines “peer review” as “the procedure for evaluation by professional health care providers of the quality and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other professional health care providers,” and lists many examples of the qualifying types of reviews. The Act defines “review organizations” as “any committee engaging in peer review,” and lists many examples of such committees. These definitions have been the topic of intense litigation as aggressive plaintiffs’ attorneys seek discovery of peer review materials in professional negligence actions.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Prior Opinion in Reginelli v. Boggs
Reginelli v. Boggs, a hotly contested 4-3 decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued in 2018, narrowed the protection available to health care providers under the PRPA’s evidentiary privileges.
Plaintiff Eleanor Reginelli brought suit after suffering a heart attack shortly after seeking treatment from Dr. Marcellus...
