TALLAHASSEE - The voters spoke, but what exactly did they say?
That's what Florida's hospitals are asking about a newly passed constitutional amendment requiring them to release to patients any "records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident."
What that means, and how those records should be released, isn't clear, the Florida Hospital Association argued Thursday, asking a judge to delay the amendment's implementation until it is clarified by the courts or the Legislature.
The amendment passed Nov. 2 with 81 percent of the vote. It was effective immediately, and some lawyers are already asking hospitals for records.
But Jerome Hoffman, a lawyer for the hospitals, said current statutes make many hospital records confidential, so there is a conflict between state law and the apparent intent of the amendment.
He said it is also not clear whether patients who want records have to petition a court for them, or just ask; who is a "patient" in the scope of the amendment; and whether records created when they were presumed to be confidential should be included.
"There's going to be chaos," Hoffman said. He said the Legislature should "set some rules."
But Floridians for Patient Protection, which pushed for the amendment, was allowed by Circuit Judge Jonathan Sjostrom to join the case and argue against delaying its enforcement.
The group, created by attorneys who represent malpractice victims, argued that the measure was clear and passed so overwhelmingly that to delay it from taking effect would thwart the will of the people.
"Sometimes I have to be a will thwarter," Sjostrom said.
The lawyers' group argued that it doesn't make sense to ask the Legislature how to put the requirement in place - patients voted for the measure because they have been frustrated by lawmakers' keeping information private.
"The whole point of this amendment was to go over the head of the Legislature," said attorney Lance Block.
Hospitals say the amendment will have a detrimental effect on peer review, in which hospitals and doctors go over mistakes to decide whether to discipline employees. Doctors won't participate if the information is public, Hoffman said.
Sjostrom said he won't make a decision until at least next week.
Earlier this week lawyers and hospitals clashed over another initiative voters passed Nov. 2. Circuit Judge Janet Ferris temporarily halted enactment of an amendment that would revoke the license of any doctor who commits three acts of medical malpractice, saying it needed more clarification.
