Adverse Event Confidentiality

Then there is the privacy issue. If privacy laws such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are to be respected, what good is producing an adverse medical incident report that is required by HIPAA but not including identifying information about the patient? HIPAA would thus destroy much of the good intended by the amendment passed by the voters. Moreover, since the amendment doesn't specify exactly who is entitled to such records, then anyone can request such information, regardless of applicable state or federal privacy laws.

Last, but certainly not least, are evidence laws relating to adverse medical incident records. The Florida high court blundered when it stated that a restriction on admitting such records in court cannot stand. Surely the decision on whether the constitutional amendment was retroactive was never intended to circumvent Florida's laws regulating the admissibility of evidence. Yet this is a conundrum that the court majority has now created.

The law is never precise, and many times its development can raise more issues than it solves. That is what has happened here. What the Florida Supreme Court has done needs fixing—by the court somehow amending its decision, or by the Florida legislature harmonizing state law with the constitutional amendment passed by Florida's voters, or by having Florida voters amend the state constitution in some fashion. Only then can physicians in Florida and elsewhere be assured that the confidential work of peer review committees and accreditation organizations will remain confidential.