Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Medical Discipline topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee defers physician‑peer‑review bill after testimony about board process and costs

House Committee of Health and Welfare · April 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee voluntarily deferred HB 12 27, a bill requiring three‑physician peer review before formal disciplinary proceedings for clinical‑judgment complaints, after testimony from an affected physician and the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners about costs, process and capacity.

Representative DeWitt introduced House Bill 12 27 to require that complaints involving clinical judgment be reviewed by a three‑physician peer panel before formal disciplinary action. The sponsor said the bill would add a medical‑expert filter while preserving the board’s authority to act in emergencies.

Dr. Todd Howell, a Louisiana physician, described years of litigation over board complaints and said the process cost him about $600,000. "If a complaint is serious enough to threaten a physician's license, livelihood, and reputation, then it's serious enough to be screened first by physicians who understand the realities of patient care within that specialty," Howell said, urging the committee to adopt a peer‑review step to improve fairness and context in medical investigations.

Vincent Collada, the executive director of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, explained the board’s current, complaint‑driven process, noted recent improvements in timeliness (preliminary reviews averaging under 90 days) and described practical challenges such as recruiting practicing physicians for ad hoc review panels and funding to compensate them. Collada said the board already uses physicians and experts in investigations and cautioned that the proposed statutory panel could be difficult to operationalize without funding or enforceable participation requirements.

Members discussed possible middle ground, including study or negotiated amendments, and both the sponsor and board agreed to continue working out details. Representative DeWitt asked to voluntarily defer HB 12 27 to allow further engagement with the board and physicians; the committee granted the deferment.