2010 Wisconsin Code
Chapter 146. Miscellaneous health provisions.
146.38 Health care services review; confidentiality of information.
146.38146.38 Health care services review; confidentiality of information.
146.38(1)(1) In this section:
146.38(1)(a)(a) "Evaluator" means a medical director or a registered nurse who coordinates review of an emergency medical services program of a health care provider.
146.38(1)(b)(b) "Health care provider" includes an ambulance service provider, as defined in s. 256.01 (3), an emergency medical technician, as defined in s. 256.01 (5), and a first responder, as defined in s. 256.01 (9).
146.38(1)(c)(c) "Medical director" has the meaning specified in s. 256.01 (11).
146.38(1m)(1m) No person who participates in the review or evaluation of the services of health care providers or facilities or charges for such services may disclose any information acquired in connection with such review or evaluation except as provided in sub. (3).
146.38(2)(2) All organizations or evaluators reviewing or evaluating the services of health care providers shall keep a record of their investigations, inquiries, proceedings and conclusions. No such record may be released to any person under s. 804.10 (4) or otherwise except as provided in sub. (3). No such record may be used in any civil action for personal injuries against the health care provider or facility; however, information, documents or records presented during the review or evaluation may not be construed as immune from discovery under s. 804.10 (4) or use in any civil action merely because they were so presented. Any person who testifies during or participates in the review or evaluation may testify in any civil action as to matters within his or her knowledge, but may not testify as to information obtained through his or her participation in the review or evaluation, nor as to any conclusion of such review or evaluation.
146.38(3)(3) Information acquired in connection with the review and evaluation of health care services shall be disclosed and records of such review and evaluation shall be released, with the identity of any patient whose treatment is reviewed being withheld unless the patient has granted permission to disclose identity, in the following circumstances:
146.38(3)(a)(a) To the health care provider or facility whose services are being reviewed or evaluated, upon the request of such provider or facility;
146.38(3)(b)(b) To any person with the consent of the health care provider or facility whose services are being reviewed or evaluated;
146.38(3)(c)(c) To the person requesting the review or evaluation, for use solely for the purpose of improving the quality of health care, avoiding the improper utilization of the services of health care providers and facilities, and determining the reasonable charges for such services;
146.38(3)(d)(d) In a report in statistical form. The report may identify any provider or facility to which the statistics relate;
146.38(3)(dm)(dm) With regard to an action under s. 895.441, to a court of record after issuance of a subpoena;
146.38(3)(e)(e) With regard to any criminal matter, to a court of record, in accordance with chs. 885 to 895 and 995 and after issuance of a subpoena; and
146.38(3)(f)(f) To the appropriate examining or licensing board or agency, when the organization or evaluator conducting the review or evaluation determines that such action is advisable.
146.38(4)(4) Any person who discloses information or releases a record in violation of this section, other than through a good faith mistake, is civilly liable therefor to any person harmed by the disclosure or release.
146.38(5)(5) This section does not apply to s. 256.25.
146.38 - ANNOT.History: 1975 c. 187; 1979 c. 89; 1983 a. 27; 1989 a. 102; 1991 a. 217; 1999 a. 56; 2005 a. 155, 315; 2007 a. 130.
146.38 - ANNOT.The conclusions of a hospital governing body, based on records and conclusions of peer review committees, were not privileged under this section. Good Samaritan Hospital v. Moroney, 123 Wis. 2d 89, 365 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 1984).
146.38 - ANNOT.The methodology for determining privileged records under sub. (2) is outlined. Franzen v. Children's Hospital, 169 Wis. 2d 366, 485 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1992).
146.38 - ANNOT.The methodology for determining privileged communications under sub. (1m) is discussed. Mallon v. Campbell, 178 Wis. 2d 278, 504 N.W.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1993).
146.38 - ANNOT.Because this section does not provide for the loss of confidentiality due to disclosure to third parties, no waiver exists under this section. Ollman v. Health Care Liability Ins. Co. 178 Wis. 2d 648, 505 N.W.2d 399 (Ct. App. 1993).
146.38 - ANNOT.Statistical data regarding a hospital's rates of infection for postoperative patients qualifies as a report in statistical form under sub. (3) (d) and was subject to discovery. A court need not conduct an in camera inspection to determine if material sought may be released when there is a request for information that on its face is clearly protected by this section. Braverman v. Columbia Hospital, Inc. 2001 WI App 106, 244 Wis. 2d 98, 629 N.W.2d 66, 00-0901.
146.38 - ANNOT.The department of health and family services is a person subject to restrictions under sub. (1m) regarding the release of information. Braverman v. Columbia Hospital, Inc. 2001 WI App 106, 244 Wis. 2d 98, 629 N.W.2d 66, 00-0901.
146.38 - ANNOT.Site reviews by associations to which local hospitals voluntarily submit for review in order to improve the quality of health care services constitutes peer review, the discovery of which is barred by this section. Hofflander v. St. Catherine's Hospital, Inc. 2003 WI 77, 262 Wis. 2d 539, 664 N.W.2d 545, 00-2467.
146.38 - ANNOT.The party asserting the health care services review privilege under sub. (1m) bears the burden of establishing 2 conditions: 1) the investigation must be part of a program organized and operated to improve the quality of health care at the hospital, and 2) the person conducting the investigation must be acting on behalf of, or as part of a group with relatively constant membership, officers, a purpose, and a set of regulations. The privilege did not apply to an investigation conducted by an individual doctor, and not the hospital's peer review committee, that was initiated by the hospital to report a problem to the supervisor of the residency program in which the defendant resident was enrolled, and not to improve the quality of health care at the hospital. Phelps v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc. 2005 WI 85, 282 Wis. 2d 69, 698 N.W.2d 643, 03-0580.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Wisconsin may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.