Smith Hulsey & Busey shareholder Earl E. Googe, Jr. provided insights from his deep experience guiding hospitals and health systems through the complex physician discipline process in an article for the American Health Law Association?s Health Law Weekly. Specifically, Earl offered informed guidance on how medical staff leadership should approach choosing outside counsel to serve in two critical distinct roles: advocate and hearing officer. Having frequently served in both positions throughout his 30-year career, Googe had a wealth of practical advice and actionable takeaways to share.
In his article titled “Removing the Disruptive Doctor: How to Select Attorneys to Lead the Physician Credentialing and Disciplinary Process,” Googe notes that the process for withdrawing a physician?s privileges at a hospital or health system is complex and not straightforward. Medical staff leadership must present both a convincing case to a panel of the physician’s peers and ensure state and federal law, along with the organization’s own policies, are followed to the letter.
Medical staff are supported in this process by both an advocate and a hearing officer. The advocate’s role is that of a prosecutor who assembles all the evidence for a problematic doctor’s removal and crafts a case. The case is then presented at a credentialing hearing to a group of doctors who will decide whether or not to withdraw privileges. The job of the advocate is to outline why the doctor at issue poses liability for the hospital and health system. Their role is not to be impartial; they are defenders of the organization’s interests.
The hearing officer, on the other hand, ensures the credentialing process is fair and compliant with all applicable laws and rules. While the advocate can be a lawyer who has represented the hospital or health system, the hearing officer should be an outside counsel who has no connection to the problematic physician to avoid any perception of bias. They will know well the hospital’s policies, along with applicable regulations and statutes.
“From the initial recognition of red flags and collection of the evidence that will ultimately support corrective action to the final decision rendered by the review panel, the journey is fraught with legal, ethical, and practical considerations and pitfalls,” writes Googe. ‘Knowing where the pitfalls and traps lie is the stock and trade of both the advocate and the hearing officer.”
Googe represents leading hospitals and health systems. He has deep experience with the physician credentialing process, having served as an advocate throughout Florida and a hearing officer across the country. He also advises healthcare industry clients on the highly regulated sector?s evolving legal landscape, including issues related to licensing, technology and insurance.
–
Removing the Disruptive Doctor (Googe for AHLA) Follow us on
for more content updates