不顾后果地挥舞着魔杖:允许使用审查医生凌驾于医生的命令之上,但保护他们免受通常与医学学位相关的法律风险。

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Duke Law Journal Pub Date : 2010-02-01
Katherine L Record
{"title":"不顾后果地挥舞着魔杖:允许使用审查医生凌驾于医生的命令之上,但保护他们免受通常与医学学位相关的法律风险。","authors":"Katherine L Record","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care delivered to the patient, but are governed by two very different liability regimes. A patient who suffers an adverse outcome may sue his physician in tort, while a patient who suffers from a lack of coverage may generally sue his insurer only under contract. In other words, when a patient suffers from inadequate care, his potential remedies vary considerably depending on whether the physician or the insurer is the defendant. This discrepancy in liability is the consequence of the federal law governing the administration of employer-sponsored health plans, and its extensive preemption of related state law. Many commentators have called for legal reform to address the distortion of managed care liability that results, arguing that managed care liability must be consistent or that wronged beneficiaries must have access to meaningful remedies. This Note argues that the federal law governing managed care organizations is problematic for a different reason and that the first step toward reform may be more elementary than previously suggested. Specifically, it suggests that the law governing insurers' coverage decisions is inconsistent with the law governing treatment recommendations. Patients suffer the same harm from error in both contexts-but because they can recover substantially more from treating physicians, doctors are named as defendants even when the insurers make errors. Further, this Note argues that simply aligning these two standards might offer a gateway to reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":47625,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law Journal","volume":"59 5","pages":"955-1000"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2010-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wielding the wand without facing the music: allowing utilization review physicians to trump doctors' orders, but protecting them from legal risk ordinarily attached to the medical degree.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine L Record\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care delivered to the patient, but are governed by two very different liability regimes. A patient who suffers an adverse outcome may sue his physician in tort, while a patient who suffers from a lack of coverage may generally sue his insurer only under contract. In other words, when a patient suffers from inadequate care, his potential remedies vary considerably depending on whether the physician or the insurer is the defendant. This discrepancy in liability is the consequence of the federal law governing the administration of employer-sponsored health plans, and its extensive preemption of related state law. Many commentators have called for legal reform to address the distortion of managed care liability that results, arguing that managed care liability must be consistent or that wronged beneficiaries must have access to meaningful remedies. This Note argues that the federal law governing managed care organizations is problematic for a different reason and that the first step toward reform may be more elementary than previously suggested. Specifically, it suggests that the law governing insurers' coverage decisions is inconsistent with the law governing treatment recommendations. Patients suffer the same harm from error in both contexts-but because they can recover substantially more from treating physicians, doctors are named as defendants even when the insurers make errors. Further, this Note argues that simply aligning these two standards might offer a gateway to reform.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Duke Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"59 5\",\"pages\":\"955-1000\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Duke Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本说明指出了指导患者护理的决策法律中的一个差异。在寻求由第三方支付费用的治疗时,患者不仅需要医生开出的治疗方案,还需要保险公司的证明,证明费用是医疗上必需的,或者在患者的计划中有其他支付。这两种决定都直接影响到向患者提供的最终护理,但受两种截然不同的责任制度的支配。遭受不利结果的病人可以以侵权行为起诉他的医生,而遭受缺乏保险的病人通常只能根据合同起诉他的保险公司。换句话说,当一个病人受到不充分的照顾时,他可能得到的救济很大程度上取决于是医生还是保险公司是被告。这种责任上的差异是管理雇主赞助的健康计划的联邦法律及其广泛优先于相关州法律的结果。许多评论家呼吁进行法律改革,以解决管理医疗责任的扭曲,认为管理医疗责任必须是一致的,或者被冤枉的受益人必须获得有意义的补救措施。本文认为,管理管理式医疗机构的联邦法律是有问题的,原因不同,改革的第一步可能比以前建议的更基本。具体来说,它表明管理保险公司承保范围决定的法律与管理治疗建议的法律不一致。在这两种情况下,病人因失误而遭受的伤害是相同的,但由于他们可以从治疗医生那里得到更多的补偿,即使保险公司犯了错误,医生也被列为被告。此外,本报告认为,简单地将这两个标准统一起来可能会为改革提供一个途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Wielding the wand without facing the music: allowing utilization review physicians to trump doctors' orders, but protecting them from legal risk ordinarily attached to the medical degree.

This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care delivered to the patient, but are governed by two very different liability regimes. A patient who suffers an adverse outcome may sue his physician in tort, while a patient who suffers from a lack of coverage may generally sue his insurer only under contract. In other words, when a patient suffers from inadequate care, his potential remedies vary considerably depending on whether the physician or the insurer is the defendant. This discrepancy in liability is the consequence of the federal law governing the administration of employer-sponsored health plans, and its extensive preemption of related state law. Many commentators have called for legal reform to address the distortion of managed care liability that results, arguing that managed care liability must be consistent or that wronged beneficiaries must have access to meaningful remedies. This Note argues that the federal law governing managed care organizations is problematic for a different reason and that the first step toward reform may be more elementary than previously suggested. Specifically, it suggests that the law governing insurers' coverage decisions is inconsistent with the law governing treatment recommendations. Patients suffer the same harm from error in both contexts-but because they can recover substantially more from treating physicians, doctors are named as defendants even when the insurers make errors. Further, this Note argues that simply aligning these two standards might offer a gateway to reform.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The first issue of what was to become the Duke Law Journal was published in March 1951 as the Duke Bar Journal. Created to provide a medium for student expression, the Duke Bar Journal consisted entirely of student-written and student-edited work until 1953, when it began publishing faculty contributions. To reflect the inclusion of faculty scholarship, the Duke Bar Journal became the Duke Law Journal in 1957. In 1969, the Journal published its inaugural Administrative Law Symposium issue, a tradition that continues today. Volume 1 of the Duke Bar Journal spanned two issues and 259 pages. In 1959, the Journal grew to four issues and 649 pages, growing again in 1970 to six issues and 1263 pages. Today, the Duke Law Journal publishes eight issues per volume. Our staff is committed to the purpose set forth in our constitution: to publish legal writing of superior quality. We seek to publish a collection of outstanding scholarship from established legal writers, up-and-coming authors, and our own student editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信