Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Peer Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves peer-review confidentiality change amid separation-of-powers concerns
Summary
The House passed SGR 15 to amend civil-procedure rules protecting peer-review materials from discovery; supporters said confidentiality preserves candid review and patient safety, while some members raised separation-of-powers and access-to-justice concerns.
The Utah House passed SGR 15 on March 6 to amend rules of civil procedure and protect peer-review committee deliberations from routine discovery.
Supporters argued the prior opening of peer-review records by a judge has chilled candid internal review and risked patient safety by discouraging frank discussion among clinicians. Representative Ray, who summarized the bill, said members had two choices: "We can protect this, and we can allow the review to go ahead and to to better patient safety," urging protection to preserve the peer-review function. Supporters including Representative Barlow and Representative Gibson said confidentiality helps identify and fix systemic problems absent fear of litigation.
Opponents raised legal and institutional concerns. Representative King noted separation-of-powers questions and said he had not seen formal comment from the bar or administrative office of the courts; Representative Frank relayed a constituent-trial-attorney view that the change could deny litigants access to relevant materials and raised Seventh Amendment worries. Debate referenced balancing patient safety against discovery rights.
After discussion and summations, the House passed SGR 15 (vote recorded as 56 yays and 13 nays). The resolution will be returned to the Senate.
