title: Oregon's Patrick case and Supreme Court decision.
abstract: Does the Patrick decision affect properly done peer review used to consider quality patient care? The answer is most definitely no! If guidelines are followed that abide by the HCQIA and hospital peers review bylaws, then one can be fairly certain that physician reviewers are, indeed, immune to most liability challenges (one should remember, however, that compliance with HCQIA only provides immunity from federal and state law private claims, and not actions by the U.S. Department of Justice as a State Attorney General, i.e. criminal antitrust claims). We must be aware of and revise where necessary to conform to HCQIA our own hospital medical staff bylaws and policies as well as state procedural and reporting policies. We have learned that anticompetitive acts in the business of medicine are dealt with under the law no differently than anticompetitive acts in any other business. We must be aware of antitrust laws and remember as an extension of Patrick that medical groups dealing with alternative health delivery systems and joint ventures must consider any anticompetitive aspects of proposed contracts. Failure to do so could put us in jail.
authors.affiliation: Arthroscopy Association of North America, Chicago, IL 60610.
authors.forename: A H
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Morris
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D009922:Oregon; D010380:Peer Review; D011787:Quality of Health Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence