SB 1695 - Current law provides that the interviews, memoranda, proceedings, findings, deliberations, reports, and minutes of peer review committees for health care professionals, or the existence of such, concerning the health care provided to any patient are privileged and shall not be subject to discovery nor admissible into evidence. This act modifies the provision to provide that the memoranda, findings, deliberations, and reports of peer review committees concerning the health care provided to any individual identifiable patient are privileged and may not be admissible into evidence. This act repeals the provision prohibiting or requiring the disclosure of information acquired in connection with or in the course of a peer review committee from persons in attendance. Currently, information otherwise discoverable or admissible from original sources is not to be construed as immune merely because it was presented during peer review committee proceedings nor shall certain persons be prevented from testifying as to matters within his personal knowledge, but such witness cannot be questioned about testimony or other proceedings before any health care review committee or about opinions formed as a result of such committee hearings. This act instead provides that such information otherwise discoverable or admissible may not be construed as immune merely because it was presented, discovered, or considered during peer review committee proceedings nor shall certain persons be prevented from testifying as to matters in accordance with the rules of evidence, but such witness cannot be questioned about opinions formed solely as a result of such committee hearings. Furthermore, this act repeals the provision regarding the effect of disclosure of information from peer review committees to any person or entity on the confidentiality, discovery, or admissibility of such information. KATIE O'BRIEN

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Stephen Webber

SB 1695 loosens confidentiality protections for medical peer review committee evidence, increasing its admissibility in court proceedings against health care professionals.

Second Read and Referred S Emerging Issues and Professional Registration Committee

Legislative bill overview

SB 1695 modifies the rules governing when evidence from peer review committees—internal medical oversight bodies that evaluate health care professional performance—can be admitted in legal proceedings. The bill adjusts confidentiality protections and evidentiary standards that currently shield most peer review materials from courtroom use, potentially making more of this information discoverable in lawsuits.

Why is this important

Peer review confidentiality has long been considered essential for honest professional evaluation and quality improvement, allowing doctors to candidly assess colleagues without fear of litigation. Changes to these protections could significantly impact medical malpractice cases, professional licensing disputes, and the internal accountability mechanisms hospitals use to maintain care standards.

Potential points of contention

Patient access to safety information: Advocates argue stronger discovery rights could expose dangerous patterns in practitioner conduct; hospitals counter that reduced confidentiality chills candid discussions needed for genuine quality improvement

Balance between transparency and candor: Opening peer review files makes institutions more accountable but may incentivize documentation avoidance or performative rather than substantive peer evaluation

Litigation cost implications: Broader admissibility increases discovery burdens and legal expenses for health care providers; patients' attorneys gain tools to build cases but may face organized resistance to disclosure