Grassley not pleased with HRSA, requests immediate briefing
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) has thrown the hammer down in his vendetta against the Health Research and Services Administration (HRSA) in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concerning HRSA’s decision to shut down public access to the National Practitioner Data Bank’s (NPDB’s) Public Use File (PUF).
In a letter dated Nov. 3, he wrote, “Instead of conducting its own research…HRSA appears to have over reacted to the complaint of a single physician based on no evidence other than that he received a call from the press. This action, and the subsequent action of removing access to the PUF, flies in the face of HRSA’s mandate to enhance the quality of healthcare.”
In an earlier letter to HRSA, Grassley requested answers to his questions concerning the decision. The responses that he received were, in his opinion, unsatisfactory. For example, the fourth question asked who was responsible for the decision to remove public access to the PUF. “[T]he response merely said it was made by HRSA leadership,” Grassley wrote.
According to the Senator, the intent of the legislation that created the PUF was to enhance the quality of healthcare, encourage greater efforts in professional peer review and restrict the ability of incompetent healthcare practitioners to relocate without discovery of previous substandard performance or unprofessional conduct. “However, from the documents provided by HRSA it appears that instead of protecting the interest of public health, its purpose was to protect a single physician who had a malpractice suit and disciplinary action filed against him,” he asserted.
Grassley requested that full public access to the PUF should be restored to HRSA’s website immediately and that the individual at HRSA responsible for the decision to remove the public access to the PUF brief his staff immediately. “As part of this briefing, please bring the unredacted copies of all documents HRSA supplied as part of my initial inquiry,” he concluded.
In a letter dated Nov. 3, he wrote, “Instead of conducting its own research…HRSA appears to have over reacted to the complaint of a single physician based on no evidence other than that he received a call from the press. This action, and the subsequent action of removing access to the PUF, flies in the face of HRSA’s mandate to enhance the quality of healthcare.”
In an earlier letter to HRSA, Grassley requested answers to his questions concerning the decision. The responses that he received were, in his opinion, unsatisfactory. For example, the fourth question asked who was responsible for the decision to remove public access to the PUF. “[T]he response merely said it was made by HRSA leadership,” Grassley wrote.
According to the Senator, the intent of the legislation that created the PUF was to enhance the quality of healthcare, encourage greater efforts in professional peer review and restrict the ability of incompetent healthcare practitioners to relocate without discovery of previous substandard performance or unprofessional conduct. “However, from the documents provided by HRSA it appears that instead of protecting the interest of public health, its purpose was to protect a single physician who had a malpractice suit and disciplinary action filed against him,” he asserted.
Grassley requested that full public access to the PUF should be restored to HRSA’s website immediately and that the individual at HRSA responsible for the decision to remove the public access to the PUF brief his staff immediately. “As part of this briefing, please bring the unredacted copies of all documents HRSA supplied as part of my initial inquiry,” he concluded.