On Physician Peer Review

Join Our Mailing List

New Era Risks

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA, CMP™


The Center for Peer Review Justice is a group of physicians, podiatrists, dentists and osteopaths who have witnessed the perversion of medical peer review by malice and bad faith.

Raison D’etre

Like the American Association of Neurological Surgeons [AANS], they have seen the statutory immunity, which is provided to “peers” for the purposes of quality assurance and credentialing, used as cover to allow those “peers” to ruin careers and reputations to further their own, usually monetary agenda of destroying the competition.

Cause and Goals

Therefore, the group is dedicated to the exposure, conviction, and sanction of doctors, and affiliated hospitals, HMOs, medical boards, and other such institutions, that would use peer review as a weapon to unfairly destroy other professionals.


www.PeerReview.org is a rallying point and resource center for any medical professional that finds himself in the midst of an unfair and bad faith attack by unethical, malicious “peers”.


Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com


Product Details  Product Details

  Risk Management, Liability Insurance, and Asset Protection Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™



6 Responses

  1. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Peer-Review Case

    Last year the US Supreme Court declined to review a case that hospitals hoped would clarify whether federal courts must defer to state laws protecting the confidentiality of peer review.

    At that time, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that peer-review records should be fair game for a urologist attempting to prove he was the target of racial discrimination at 186-bed Houston Medical Center in Warner Robins, GA. Houston appealed to the Supreme Court.

    No federal law provides a privilege for hospital peer-review, but all states have laws that protect the confidentiality hospitals say they need in order to foster the participation and candor crucial to identifying and addressing mistakes.

    Source: Gregg Blesch, Modern Healthcare [1/10/08]


  2. Medical Boards’ Actions Against Docs up 6.8% in 2011

    Driven in part by the Florida Board of Medicine, state medical boards’ disciplinary actions against physicians increased 6.8% in 2011, and 4.9% more doctors had their medical licenses or license privileges revoked or suspended, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards Summary of 2011 Board Actions.

    The national increase in total serious actions could be traced in part to the Florida Board of Medicine, whose total disciplinary actions increased 54.4% to 332 from 215. This figure included a 51.6% increase in revocation of medical licenses to 144 from 95.

    Source: Andis Robeznieks, Modern Healthcare [5/17/12]


  3. LA Podiatrist Discusses Sham Peer Review

    Hospitals’ misuse of their powers is often called “sham” peer review, said Richard Willner, DPM, a podiatrist who heads the Center for Peer Review Justice in New Orleans, which advises physicians caught up in these decisions.

    Dr. Willner said targeted physicians don’t get the basic due process rights that anyone else can get in a court of law. “There is no federal statute that requires peer review committees to observe due process,” he said, adding that the panels are not required to provide notice of allegations or a list of witnesses, or allow for legal representation, which are all due process rights. This makes peer review a highly effective way to silence physicians.

    Although they can appeal their case to the courts, no more than 5% of these lawsuits are successful, he said.

    Source: Leigh Page, Medscape Family Medicine [4/3/14]


  4. OK Legislature Significantly Expands Peer Review Privilege

    Oklahoma’s peer review statute provides that peer review information is private, confidential, and privileged. It encourages healthcare professionals to police themselves by evaluating their peers. It also promotes the continuous assessment and improvement of care provided so that patients and healthcare professionals can benefit. Effective November 1, 2014, the statutory protection was extended to cover peer review information generated during the course of a peer review process conducted by a “health care entity.”

    A health care entity includes, in addition to licensed hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, and clinical practices of accredited state medical schools, any entity directly involved in the delivery of health care services that engages in a credentialing or peer review process.

    Consequently, physician group practices, medical clinics, podiatrists, and others may take advantage of the peer review protection that was previously limited to hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and clinical practices of medical schools.

    Source: Michael Joseph
    [JDSUPRA Business Advisor 12/14/14]


  5. Hospital Credentialing

    According to Christopher Johnson MD, credentialing is a mess and has got to get better organized somehow. We need a central authority of some sort, accepted by all. The current trajectory is unsustainable.


    Health care is expensive enough, and all this adds many millions to the total costs for little benefit.



  6. Sham Peer Review and Increased Physician Suicide Risk

    According to Dr. Richard Willner, various stressors have been correlated to physician suicide, including: personal, financial, and profession. And, anyone who has been under pressure from a legitimate review process will readily tell you that it can be stressful. If the review is a sham, the stressful nature of the review increases dramatically.


    This unnecessary stress may increase the risk of depression and suicide in the physicians exposed to sham peer reviews.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: