These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
4. Protection of quality assurance and peer review data. Stevens M Health Law Can; 1992; 13(2):167-72. PubMed ID: 10126149 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1992 Aug; 22(34):80. PubMed ID: 10119842 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The antitrust laws and the medical peer review process. Hammack JM J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():419-50. PubMed ID: 10126945 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 2003 Schwartz Award. Pitfalls of peer review. The limited protections of state and federal peer review law for physicians. Nijm LM J Leg Med; 2003 Dec; 24(4):541-56. PubMed ID: 14660324 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Meeting the peer review challenge. Waxman JM Health Syst Rev; 1991; 24(5):38-40. PubMed ID: 10113815 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Legal access to patient health records/protection of quality assurance activities. Feehan KP Health Law Can; 1991; 12(1):3-10, 31. PubMed ID: 10114435 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank. Snelson E Qual Assur Util Rev; 1992; 7(1):2-11. PubMed ID: 1603858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. They just don't get it. Hackney VH; Le Grand AC Hosp Law Newsl; 1992 Dec; 10(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 10122732 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: a view from the Federal Trade Commission. Horoschak MJ Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):17-24. PubMed ID: 10116790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply? Meghrigian AG Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):9-16. PubMed ID: 10116795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. HCQIA's grant of immunity: panacea or Pandora's box. Scott C Hosp Law Newsl; 1992 Jan; 9(3):1-7. PubMed ID: 10116004 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The peer review privilege: a dying cause? McKinney P J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jul; 25(7):201-11, 215. PubMed ID: 10123592 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review, hearing requirements, and antitrust: maximizing Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act compliance and immunity. Snelson EA J Med Assoc Ga; 1992 Sep; 81(9):495-7. PubMed ID: 1402428 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Antitrust liability of pharmacists involved with quality assurance programs. O'Brien PC Hosp Pharm; 1990 Dec; 25(12):1115, 1118. PubMed ID: 10108252 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Protection of quality assurance and peer review data. Stevens M Health Law Can; 1989; 9(3):79-82. PubMed ID: 10313023 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The fox guarding the henhouse: how the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and State peer review protection statutes have helped protect bad faith peer review in the medical community. van Geertruyden YH J Contemp Health Law Policy; 2001; 18(1):239-71. PubMed ID: 15255061 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]