title: Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank.
abstract: Patrick v. Burget, the landmark peer review case holding physicians liable under federal antitrust law for substantial damages caused by bad faith peer review, gave rise to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. As shown in the recent decision in Austin v. McNamara, the Act's conditional immunities may promote peer review. However, the Act also created the National Practitioner Data Bank, which may have a chilling effect on peer review. The quality assurance implications of each of these federal legal developments is analyzed.
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Snelson
mesh_terms: D016363:Antitrust Laws; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008504:Medical Staff Privileges / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016749:National Practitioner Data Bank; D009922:Oregon; D010380:Peer Review / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States