DC0EF34D5B5FA522872583E800085B3C Hearing Summary

Senator Foote and Rodriguez, co-prime sponsors, explained SB 19-234, concerning the continuation of the functions of professional review committees, and, in connection therewith, implementing the recommendations contained in the 2018 sunset report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies.  Senator Foote recapped the sunset review on the Colorado Professional Review Act in Senate Judiciary heard on March 25, 2019.

Dr. Bill Scelza, representing Craig Hospital, testified in support of the bill. He discussed the benefits of a peer review process for physicians.  

Amber Burkhart, representing the Colorado Hospital Association read supporting testimony from Kelly Erb of the Colorado Rural Health Center.  The letter stated that rural health providers in isolated areas particularly benefit from peer reviews.  

Dr. Darlene Tad-Y. representing the Colorado Hospital Association, testified in favor of the bill.  She discussed how peer review facilitates training and professional development.

Ann McCullough, representing the Colorado Hospital Association, testified in support of the bill.  She focused on the positive operational aspects of peer review.  She expressed concerns that it will grind to a halt if not re-authorized and increase health care costs. 

A letter from the Colorado Hospital Association in support of SB 19-234 was distributed to committee members (Attachment B). 

Adam Kozlowski, representing the Colorado Medical Society, testified in support of the bill.  As an anesthesiologist, he discussed the benefits of peer review.

Jill Jamison, representing Kaiser Permanente, testified in support of the bill. She discussed how Kaiser uses peer reviews. 

Dr. Richard Sharpe, representing Kaiser Permanente, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed how the confidentiality component in the bill is important and ultimately protects patients.  He distributed a fact sheet about peer review (Attachment C). 

Dr. Abraham Nussbaum, representing Denver Health, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed how peer review is used in residency programs. 

Dr. Todd Mydler, representing SCL Health, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed the benefits of peer review for physicians. 

Amy Cardone, representing the Colorado Medical Society, testified in support of the bill.  She suggested an amendment that would clarify and make public original source materials that are not part of the peer review process.  She distributed an assessment of the impact on patient safety in Florida since professional review records became discoverable (Attachment D). 

Peter McClenahan, representing patients, testified in opposition to the bill. He stressed that peer review hides adverse events under privilege.  He cited peer review quality management statutes as a better example of balancing the varied interests (Section 25-3-109, C.R.S.). 

Jim Puga, representing himself as a trial attorney who represents consumers and patients, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed patient safety and a patient's right to know what happened. 

Lorraine Parker, representing patients, testified in opposition to the bill. She emphasized that patients should have the right to know what happened and questioned earlier claims about peer review falling apart without confidentiality.

Deborah Saeed Gay, representing herself, spoke in opposition to the bill.  She relayed a personal experience in which an emergency room doctor with a substance abuse problem misdiagnosed her son's illness.

Pamela Maass, representing herself and the Rocky Mountain Victim's Law Center, spoke in opposition to the bill. She discussed sexually abusive doctors and expressed concerns that peer review creates a shield of secrecy.

Jeff Reister, representing the Department of Regulatory Agencies, provided a neutral position on the bill.  He spoke to the benefits of professional review and addressed consumer protection issues. 

Dr. Irene Aguilar, representing herself as a former state senator, spoke in favor of the bill.  She explained her work on the sunset review of the Professional Review Board in 2012.  She discussed the merits of peer review, confidentiality, and patient safety. 

Senators Foote and Rodriguez made closing remarks.  Senator Foote explained how the stakeholders could not come to an agreement about confidentiality provisions in the bill.  He recommended advancing the bill nonetheless due to the importance of peer review.  Senators Rodriguez and Foote implored the parties to come together and find a solution while the bill goes through the legislative process.