医疗保险欺诈立法:自律政治与专业标准审查组织的创建

IF 0.4 4区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Brian Dolan, Steven Beitler
{"title":"医疗保险欺诈立法:自律政治与专业标准审查组织的创建","authors":"Brian Dolan, Steven Beitler","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Not long after the 1966 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, evidence emerged that unscrupulous physicians and health care organizations were gaming the system. Research over the past 50 years shows that around 10 percent of the federal government’s annual cost for these programs is attributed to fraudulent claims or abuses where hospitals and treatments have been overused for undue provider profit. This article examines early congressional attention to this problem and describes lawmakers’ attempts to find legislative solutions to it. It historicizes the dilemma of balancing the ideological limits of government regulation with cultural assumptions about professional self-regulation, focusing on a major 1972 law, the Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) Act. The law launched a 10-year career for PSROs, physician-staffed peer-review boards designed to identify and sanction efforts to overcharge Medicare. The article contextualizes multiple actors’ concerns over cost containment and the crisis of faith in medical authority that persisted following failures to control professional malfeasance.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"475 - 504"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legislating Medicare Fraud: The Politics of Self-Regulation and the Creation of Professional Standards Review Organizations\",\"authors\":\"Brian Dolan, Steven Beitler\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0898030622000173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Not long after the 1966 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, evidence emerged that unscrupulous physicians and health care organizations were gaming the system. Research over the past 50 years shows that around 10 percent of the federal government’s annual cost for these programs is attributed to fraudulent claims or abuses where hospitals and treatments have been overused for undue provider profit. This article examines early congressional attention to this problem and describes lawmakers’ attempts to find legislative solutions to it. It historicizes the dilemma of balancing the ideological limits of government regulation with cultural assumptions about professional self-regulation, focusing on a major 1972 law, the Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) Act. The law launched a 10-year career for PSROs, physician-staffed peer-review boards designed to identify and sanction efforts to overcharge Medicare. The article contextualizes multiple actors’ concerns over cost containment and the crisis of faith in medical authority that persisted following failures to control professional malfeasance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44803,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Policy History\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"475 - 504\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Policy History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000173\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000173","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要1966年颁布医疗保险和医疗补助后不久,有证据表明,肆无忌惮的医生和医疗保健组织正在与该系统博弈。过去50年的研究表明,联邦政府每年用于这些项目的费用中,约有10%归因于欺诈性索赔或滥用,即医院和治疗被过度用于不当的提供者利润。本文考察了早期国会对这一问题的关注,并描述了立法者试图找到立法解决方案的情况。它历史化地描述了平衡政府监管的意识形态限制与职业自律的文化假设的困境,重点关注1972年的一部重要法律《职业标准审查组织法》。该法律为PSRO开启了10年的职业生涯,PSRO是一个由医生组成的同行评审委员会,旨在识别和制裁向医疗保险过度收费的行为。这篇文章结合了多个参与者对成本控制的担忧,以及在未能控制职业渎职行为后持续存在的对医疗权威的信任危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legislating Medicare Fraud: The Politics of Self-Regulation and the Creation of Professional Standards Review Organizations
Abstract Not long after the 1966 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, evidence emerged that unscrupulous physicians and health care organizations were gaming the system. Research over the past 50 years shows that around 10 percent of the federal government’s annual cost for these programs is attributed to fraudulent claims or abuses where hospitals and treatments have been overused for undue provider profit. This article examines early congressional attention to this problem and describes lawmakers’ attempts to find legislative solutions to it. It historicizes the dilemma of balancing the ideological limits of government regulation with cultural assumptions about professional self-regulation, focusing on a major 1972 law, the Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) Act. The law launched a 10-year career for PSROs, physician-staffed peer-review boards designed to identify and sanction efforts to overcharge Medicare. The article contextualizes multiple actors’ concerns over cost containment and the crisis of faith in medical authority that persisted following failures to control professional malfeasance.
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
×
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