<p class=ldtitle>Directing the Joint Commission on Health Care to study options for establishing a non-punitive, protected reporting system for medical errors in the Commonwealth. Report.</p>
SJ21 is a joint resolution directing the Joint Commission on Health Care to study whether Virginia should create a non-punitive, protected reporting system for unintended medical errors. The resolution is based on the premise that fear of civil liability, criminal prosecution, reputational harm, and licensure consequences can discourage health care providers from promptly reporting mistakes, which in turn can prevent hospitals and regulators from identifying root causes and improving patient safety.
The study would examine current reporting practices, the extent to which medical errors are reported to patient safety teams or regulatory bodies, and the legal and practical effects of reporting errors. It would also evaluate the feasibility of a protected reporting framework and consider whether limited criminal immunity should be available in cases involving unintended errors, so long as the conduct does not rise to gross negligence or willful misconduct. The commission would be required to complete its work by November 30, 2026, and submit an executive summary and any report by the start of the 2027 Regular Session.
SJ21 does not itself change the Code of Virginia or create new legal protections, but it initiates a legislative study that could lead to future changes affecting medical error reporting, patient safety procedures, and potential immunity rules. The resolution specifically asks the Joint Commission on Health Care to assess impacts on criminal liability, insurance costs, professional reputation, and licensure oversight under the authority of the Department of Health Professions, the Board of Medicine, and other regulatory boards. If acted upon later, the study could influence statutes governing health care provider reporting, confidentiality, and liability.
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a generally pro-patient-safety and pro-reporting sentiment, emphasizing learning from mistakes and reducing preventable harm. The resolution also shows caution by repeatedly noting that any protections should not shield intentional harm, gross negligence, or malfeasance, and that victims’ rights and criminal justice interests must be preserved. In the available context, there was no recorded committee debate or vote on the merits; the measure was ultimately stricken at the patron’s request in Rules by voice vote, suggesting no visible opposition was recorded in the available history.
The main point of contention embedded in the resolution is the balance between encouraging candid reporting by health care providers and preserving accountability for serious wrongdoing. Supporters of protected reporting would likely favor reduced fear of litigation, prosecution, and licensure consequences, while critics may worry that immunity or confidentiality could weaken patient remedies, reduce transparency, or make it harder to pursue criminal or professional discipline in serious cases. The resolution itself tries to address that tension by excluding gross negligence, willful misconduct, and intentional harm from any proposed protections.