AB 120 - An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

Healing arts: peer review. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.More
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations.

Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome.

This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances.

Existing law gives parties at the hearing certain rights, including the right to present and rebut evidence. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified.

This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

The bill would also provide that it shall become operative only if SB 820 is also enacted and becomes operative. Hide
 
Status:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 17, 2009.

voted YES: 35 voted NO: 0
5 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

AB 120 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a… More
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations.

Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome.

This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances.

Existing law gives parties at the hearing certain rights, including the right to present and rebut evidence. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified.

This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

The bill would also provide that it shall become operative only if SB 820 is also enacted and becomes operative. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.
Author(s)
Mary Hayashi
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Healing arts: peer review
Major Actions
Introduced1/15/2009
Referred to Committee
Passed Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection5/12/2009
Passed Assembly6/03/2009
Passed Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development7/06/2009
Passed Senate8/17/2009
Passed Assembly9/11/2009
Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/28/2009
Vetoed by Governor10/11/2009
Vetoed by Governor10/11/2009
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteAssembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer ProtectionDo pass as amended.5/12/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
11 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblyAB 120 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading6/03/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
78 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic DevelopmentDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.7/06/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
9 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
currently selectedSenateSpecial Consent #14 AB120 Hayashi By Aanestad8/17/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
35 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblyAB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments9/11/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
78 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced1/15/2009
1/15/2009Read first time. To print.
1/16/2009From printer. May be heard in committee February 15.
3/26/2009Referred to Coms. on B. & P. and JUD. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
3/27/2009Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
4/13/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
4/14/2009In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
5/07/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
5/11/2009Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
select this voteVote5/12/2009Do pass as amended.
5/14/2009From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 12).
5/18/2009Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
5/19/2009Read second time. To third reading.
6/01/2009Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading. (Page 1819.).
6/03/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2018.)
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage6/03/2009AB 120 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading
6/04/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
6/18/2009Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and RLS.
6/22/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
6/29/2009In committee: Testimony taken. Hearing postponed by committee. In committee: Further hearing to be set.
select this voteVote7/06/2009Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.
7/07/2009From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 6).
7/08/2009Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
7/13/2009Withdrawn from committee. Ordered placed on second reading file.
7/14/2009Read second time. To third reading.
7/15/2009Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.
8/17/2009Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 1842.)
8/17/2009In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 19 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/17/2009Special Consent #14 AB120 Hayashi By Aanestad
8/20/2009To inactive file on motion of Assembly Member Hayashi.
9/09/2009From inactive file. To unfinished business file.
9/11/2009Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 3357.)
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage9/11/2009AB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
9/28/2009Enrolled and to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.
Vetoed10/11/2009Vetoed by Governor.
10/26/2009Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
1/14/2010Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

Average contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

supported this bill

Physicians [About]
HMOs [About]
Average given to Senators who voted:
$13,814
$7,474
YES$21,288
$0
$0
NO$0
2 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.: Special Consent #14 AB120 Hayashi By Aanestad

2 organizations supported this bill

California Medical Association
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE (2009, July 14). AB 120 7.14.2009. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
Kaiser Permanente
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE (2009, July 14). AB 120 7.14.2009. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from Leg Info.

0 organizations opposed this bill

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2010.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Sam AanestadRCA-4$19,100$0Yes
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$11,300$0Yes
Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
John BenoitRCA-37$9,000$0Yes
Ron CalderonDCA-30$10,500$0Yes
Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$3,000$0Yes
Dave CogdillRCA-14$16,900$0Yes
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$17,700$0Yes
Lou CorreaDCA-34$37,782$0Yes
Dave CoxRCA-1$11,600$0Yes
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$14,325$0Yes
Jeff DenhamRCA-12$21,650$0Yes
Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Not Voting
Bob DuttonRCA-31$17,400$0Yes
Dean FlorezDCA-16$2,000$0Yes
Loni HancockDCA-9$23,700$0Yes
Tom HarmanRCA-35$24,400$0Yes
Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$1,500$0Yes
Bob HuffRCA-29$12,182$0Yes
Christine KehoeDCA-39$10,555$0Yes
Mark LenoDCA-3$33,500$0Yes
Carol LiuDCA-21$18,700$0Yes
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$9,050$0Yes
Abel MaldonadoRCA-15$25,272$0Not Voting
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$42,916$0Yes
Jenny OropezaDCA-28$8,800$0Not Voting
Alex PadillaDCA-20$42,400$0Yes
Fran PavleyDCA-23$19,950$0Yes
Curren PriceDCA-26$11,750$0Yes
Gloria RomeroDCA-24$10,950$0Not Voting
George RunnerRCA-17$33,298$0Yes
Joe SimitianDCA-11$16,525$0Yes
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$58,250$0Yes
Tony StricklandRCA-19$37,300$0Yes
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$50,200$0Yes
Pat WigginsDCA-2$4,600$0Yes
Lois WolkDCA-5$32,240$0Yes
Rod WrightDCA-25$27,450$0Not Voting
Mark WylandRCA-38$18,700$0Yes
Leland YeeDCA-8$51,101$0Yes

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Sam AanestadRCA-4$19,100$0Yes
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$11,300$0Yes
Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
John BenoitRCA-37$9,000$0Yes
Ron CalderonDCA-30$10,500$0Yes
Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$3,000$0Yes
Dave CogdillRCA-14$16,900$0Yes
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$17,700$0Yes
Lou CorreaDCA-34$37,782$0Yes
Dave CoxRCA-1$11,600$0Yes
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$14,325$0Yes
Jeff DenhamRCA-12$21,650$0Yes
Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Not Voting
Bob DuttonRCA-31$17,400$0Yes
Dean FlorezDCA-16$2,000$0Yes
Loni HancockDCA-9$23,700$0Yes
Tom HarmanRCA-35$24,400$0Yes
Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$1,500$0Yes
Bob HuffRCA-29$12,182$0Yes
Christine KehoeDCA-39$10,555$0Yes
Mark LenoDCA-3$33,500$0Yes
Carol LiuDCA-21$18,700$0Yes
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$9,050$0Yes
Abel MaldonadoRCA-15$25,272$0Not Voting
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$42,916$0Yes
Jenny OropezaDCA-28$8,800$0Not Voting
Alex PadillaDCA-20$42,400$0Yes
Fran PavleyDCA-23$19,950$0Yes
Curren PriceDCA-26$11,750$0Yes
Gloria RomeroDCA-24$10,950$0Not Voting
George RunnerRCA-17$33,298$0Yes
Joe SimitianDCA-11$16,525$0Yes
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$58,250$0Yes
Tony StricklandRCA-19$37,300$0Yes
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$50,200$0Yes
Pat WigginsDCA-2$4,600$0Yes
Lois WolkDCA-5$32,240$0Yes
Rod WrightDCA-25$27,450$0Not Voting
Mark WylandRCA-38$18,700$0Yes
Leland YeeDCA-8$51,101$0Yes

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
Physicians$534,970
HMOs$282,576

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range