Alliance for Patient Safety

                            All that is necessary for the triumph of evil...
                                                                ... is for good men to do nothing.

                                                                                                   Edmund Burke

From: Sprecco, Edward
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:48 AM
To: Patricia Newman

Subject: RE: AB 655

Patricia, I received your request to have information included in the legislative history of AB 655. Please call me when you have some time to discuss the best way to go about getting this on record. I will be happy to help make this happen.

Thank you,

Edward Sprecco
District Director
Office of State Senator Joel Anderson
www.senate.ca.gov/Anderson


From: Patricia Newman
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:50 PM
To: Senator Anderson

Subject: AB 655 Honorable Senator Anderson, It was very nice speaking with you at the Reagan Club gathering before the Central Committee meeting last week. You may not recall, but Donna Thompson introduced my husband, Jeff Newman, M.D., and I.

I was hoping you could include my letter into the legislative history of AB 655.

AB 655 conflicts with SB 700 (peer review/false 805 reports, Negrete McLeod/Aanestad).

Under the law implemented through SB 700's passage in 2010, the Medical Board of California, MBC, is obliged to independently verify information contained in reports submitted by hospitals against a physician, 805 report, before the MBC can circulate it or post it on the MBC's public website.

Unfortunately, AB 655 does the exact opposite, as it allows hospitals to transmit libelous information regarding a physician - without the physician's knowledge. For instance, hospital A could send false information to hospital B and hospital B might then misuse this defamatory information to report the targeted physician to the MBC.

There is no doubt that the Consumer, i.e. Patients, are harmed whenever good doctors who speak against the financial interests of hospitals are retaliated against.

Hence, unless AB 655 is amended, it will overload the MBC with false 805 reports, since more false information will be circulated.

This unnecessary public expense will endanger patients, as it will divert limited resources of the MBC from investigating legitimate complaints against bad doctors.

AB 655, Section (e) is particularly troubling:

(e) The responding peer review body is not obligated to produce the relevant peer review information pursuant to this section unless both of the following conditions are met: (1) The licentiate provides a release, as described in subdivision (2), that is acceptable to the responding peer review body.

In other words, Section (e) permits a responding peer review body to VOLUNTARILY provide derogatory information to another hospital without the licentiate's knowledge, as for instance out of personal animus.

This specific loophole could be easily remedied by amending Section (e) as follows:

“The responding peer review body MAY NOT produce the relevant peer review information ... unless ...both of the following conditions are met:"

Presently, there are two versions of AB 655, a Senate and an Assembly version, that must be reconciled.

Would you, please, introduce this amendment, forthwith ?

Vigorous opposition to AB 655 was expressed by prominent physicians and Consumers Advocates, see: Letters to Elected Officials in Opposition to A.B. 655 (Hayashi),http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/opposition-hb-655-hayashi.php.

If amended in the Assembly, AB 655 will then have to return to the Senate, or turned into a two year bill.

Alternatively, if AB 655 dies this year, it might be best.

AB 655 is a variant of AB 1235 (Hayashi) of 2010 the work product of the California Hospital Association, CHA, which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger who stated, "I vetoed two bills on this subject last year, with a clear message for the interested stakeholders to work together, along with my Administration, on this extremely complicated and complex issue.", see:http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/letters-to-gov-schwarzenegger.php.

Clearly, there is still a lot of work to do for AB 655 to protect the consumer. Below, please find, Dr Frey's letter to Assemblymember Hayashi, dated August 10, 2011, in opposition to AB 655 and points out how the medical peer review process is flawed in California, http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/frey-08-10-2011.php.

Respectfully, Paty Newman
Vista, CA