National Practitioner Data Bank Has Little Protection against Sham Peer Review, according to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 6, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), established in the 1990s, was intended to keep incompetent doctors, once discovered, from simply setting up shop in another location. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) declared that it could not be used by hospitals to end the careers of physician whistleblowers. However, the nearly absolute immunity conferred on hospitals for peer review has indeed enabled hospitals to retaliate against good physicians with sham peer review, out of anti-competitive or other nefarious motives, writes Lawrence Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D., in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
A single Adverse Action Report in the NPDB can ruin a physician's chance of obtaining medical staff privileges at any hospital or acceptance on an insurance panel. Thus, the accuracy of information in the NPDB is of paramount importance. Many questions have been raised about the efficiency and accuracy of this agency. This issue contains a transcript of an interview with NPDB director David Loewenstein.
Loewenstein stated that NPDB receives about 100,000 reports each year. Its review is limited to two things: whether the report was submitted in accordance with NPDB reporting requirements, and whether the information is consistent with the records received. NPDB does not review the underlying merits of the action that was taken.
There are very limited mechanisms for removal of an Adverse Action Report without a request by the reporting entity, one being a jury verdict that overturned a hospital's action.
According to Loewenstein, the NPDB is not intended to be used on its own. "It should be used in combination with other sources that an entity would receive…. We ask that those entities do more research when seeing an NPDB report."
However, according to Dr. Huntoon, who is chairman of the AAPS Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review, hospital administrators don't look much farther than the fact that there is an Adverse Action Report when they deny privileges. Hospitals are required by law to query the data bank before putting someone on staff and then every two years thereafter for renewal of privileges.
Loewenstein stated that NPDB collects no data on sham peer review. Its sole function is to collect information as required by statute and to make it available.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.
SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
Share this article