Fatality review teams and granting rule-making authority.
Impact
If enacted, SB177 will significantly change how fatality reviews are conducted by granting authority for these teams to access sensitive records from various agencies while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for the information they handle. The Department of Health Services (DHS) will be responsible for overseeing the creation of local and potentially state-level fatality review teams, defining their operations, and providing necessary trainings. This law aims to facilitate better data collection and analysis for reviewable deaths, leading to tailored prevention strategies that could lower mortality rates tied to unintentional injuries, suicides, and other causes of death outlined in the bill.
Summary
Senate Bill 177 establishes fatality review teams in Wisconsin, aimed at examining preventable deaths among children and adults. These teams are defined as multidisciplinary and multiagency groups that review deaths to develop recommendations for preventing future incidents. The bill details the composition, responsibilities, and operational structure of these teams, emphasizing their role in collaboratively analyzing fatalities and suggesting cross-sector policy changes to enhance public health outcomes. The bill intends to standardize the functioning of fatality reviews across the state, bridging gaps by leveraging local, tribal, and state health departments.
Contention
Notably, there are implications for confidentiality and the handling of sensitive information under SB177. The bill ensures that records and information shared within the review teams are kept confidential and are not subject to public record laws, which may raise concerns about transparency and accountability. While proponents argue that confidentiality is essential for candid discussions and recommendations, critics might fear that it could shield systemic issues from public scrutiny. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that no team members can be compelled to testify about information gathered in reviews, further complicating oversight and accountability for these processes.