The nearly identical bills -- one in the House of Representatives and the other in the Senate -- would allow access to filings regarding the case, proceedings and rulings of the state Board of Medical Examiners after the board has filed a formal complaint against a doctor. Such complaints are issued by the medical board after it determines there probably is substance to allegations against doctors.
Currently, little that the board does when handling a discipline case is made public -- not the complaint filed against a doctor that sets the case in motion, hearings held by the medical board on the allegations nor rulings issued by the board as the case proceeds.
"It opens up the process a bit in terms of what the public would have the right to know," said the House bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Phil Sinclair, R-Spartanburg.
Both bills call for a patient's medical records to be kept confidential unless the patient consents to their release.
The bills also say that doctors whose suspected misconduct arises from mental or physical problems can have their disciplinary cases handled confidentiality.
"We're not going to require people to disclose their most personal information," Sinclair said.
The wording in the bills states that "if allegations of incapacity due to physical or mental causes are raised ... all records, information and proceedings relating to those allegations of incapacity shall remain confidential."
The term "physical or mental causes" isn't defined in the bills, leaving open the question of whether misconduct cases involving alcohol or drug abuse might be considered mental or physical in nature, thus confidential.
The medical board often handles cases stemming from allegations of alcohol or drug abuse. Last year, for example, the board ordered Dr. James D. Johnston, a Hilton Head Island cardiologist, to stop practicing until he successfully completed an alcohol rehabilitation program. The medical board has not announced whether Johnston has completed the treatment program.
Jay Bender, an attorney for the South Carolina Press Association, said keeping a doctor's mental or physical problem private could help the doctor get treatment.
"The theory is you will be able to persuade someone to get treatment and salvage their career if it can be done confidentially," Bender said.
The bills before the General Assembly represent a compromise between the physician groups and the press association, an organization that represents many of the state's newspapers.
Physician groups initially expressed concerns about opening up disciplinary proceedings to the public, saying a good doctor's reputation could be damaged by airing details from complaints that turn out to be unfounded.
The press association has argued that patients need to know whether the doctor who is treating them is impaired. The association made it a priority to get the legislature to pass a measure this session that would open the medical disciplinary process to the public.
The association launched the effort in the wake of Johnston's case and another one involving a Columbia doctor who was accused of using an unusual therapy on some patients -- injecting them with hydrogen peroxide.
Both cases had been handled with extreme secrecy by the medical board and the Administrative Law Court, the venue where the two doctors appealed disciplinary orders issued by the medical board.
Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Bluffton, said he liked the idea of providing patients more information about their doctors.
"We have so many good doctors and we've got a few bad apples," he said, "and if we can expose the bad apples instead of being cloaked by the medical board, that's good."