Snelson E
Qual Assur Util Rev. 1992 Spring;7(1):2-11. doi: 10.1177/106286069200700102.
Patrick v. Burget, the landmark peer review case holding physicians liable under federal antitrust law for substantial damages caused by bad faith peer review, gave rise to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. As shown in the recent decision in Austin v. McNamara, the Act's conditional immunities may promote peer review. However, the Act also created the National Practitioner Data Bank, which may have a chilling effect on peer review. The quality assurance implications of each of these federal legal developments is analyzed.
帕特里克诉伯杰特案是具有里程碑意义的同行评审案件，该案件判定医生需依据联邦反垄断法，对因恶意同行评审造成的重大损害承担责任，这催生了《医疗保健质量改进法案》。正如奥斯汀诉麦克纳马拉案最近的判决所示，该法案的有条件豁免权可能会促进同行评审。然而，该法案还设立了全国从业者数据库，这可能会对同行评审产生抑制作用。本文分析了这些联邦法律发展各自对质量保证的影响。
