Ask the expert: Do the changes to Section 1921 of the Social Security Act affect the medical staff peer review process?
Medical Staff Leader Connection, March 25, 2010
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
The requirements for reporting by peer review organizations under Section 1921 are not expected to affect hospital reporting. Section 1921 requires the reporting of ‘‘any negative action or finding’’ by a peer review organization. For the purposes of Section 1921 reporting, the term ‘‘peer review organization’’ does not include the internal peer review committees of hospitals, professional societies, or other healthcare entities as defined in the current National Practitioner Data Bank regulations. To be subject to reporting requirements, the peer review organization must be a stand-alone organization separate from a hospital or other healthcare entity.
This week’s question and answer are from “Section 1921 changes unite NPDB and HIPDB,” in the April issue of Medical Staff Briefing.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
-
The Medical Executive Committee Handbook, Third Edition
Updated to reflect the new 2007 Joint Commission standards, this best-selling resource offers practical tools and strategies...
-
Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide, Sixth Edition
Written by experienced medical staff leaders currently working in hospitals, The Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide...
-
Assessing the Competency of Low-Volume Practitioners:
The Joint Commission requires that hospitals verify physician competence using performance data. Yet organizations often...
-
The Final Verdict on MS.01.01.01:
The Joint Commission has finalized and communicated the changes to MS.01.01.01. This program will not restate what you...
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched