• E-mail
• Print
• RSS

Tip of the week: Affiliation letter safeguards allow you to disclose more information

Credentialing Resource Center Connection , June 11, 2009

Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection !

“If there is a reason why a disclosing party does not want to provide information [in a letter], then there might be better ways to provide that information in a safe and secure environment,” says Dwight W. Scott Jr., an attorney in the healthcare section of McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, in Houston. “What I advise facilities to do if they’re in a position where they feel like they need to respond, but they don’t want to provide damaging information or find themselves in the middle of a future lawsuit, is to offer to have a committee-to-committee discussion.” Information disclosed in this way is protected under the peer review umbrella.

This scenario could happen if the MSP discovered through the credentialing process that there is more information about the practitioner the disclosing facility is reluctant to share. The MSP should contact his or her organization’s peer review committee, which in turn will contact the disclosing facility’s peer review committee to arrange a discussion. During this discussion, the two committees can exchange information about the practitioner that the requesting facility can use to determine whether it wants to grant privileges.

This week’s tip is from the HCPro, Inc. article “Don’t be scared into silence: Affiliation letter safeguards allow you to disclose more,” from the June 2009 issue of Credentialing & Peer Review Legal Insider. Click here to learn how to subscribe to this publication.

Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection !

• E-mail to a Colleague
• Print
• RSS
• Archive