Suppr超能文献

金融、供应商发布简报:保险公司责任。

Finance, providers issue brief: insurer liability.

作者信息

Rothouse M, Stauffer M

出版信息

Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv. 2000 May 24:1-16.

Abstract

When a health plan denies payment for a procedure on grounds that it is not medically necessary or when it refuses a physician-ordered referral to a specialist, has it crossed the line from making an insurance judgment to practicing medicine? If the patient suffers harm as a result of the decision, is the plan liable for medical malpractice? Those were questions 35 states considered in 1999, and at least 32 states are grappling with this year as they seek to respond to physician and patient pressure to curb the power of the managed care industry. Traditionally, health insurers have been protected by state laws banning "the corporate practice of medicine," which means the patient's only recourse is to sue under a "vicarious liability" theory. Now, however, lawmakers are debating legislation to extend the scope of malpractice liability beyond individual practitioners to insurance carriers and plans themselves.

摘要

当一个健康保险计划以某项医疗程序并非医学必需为由拒绝支付费用,或者拒绝医生要求的专科转诊时,它是否越过了从做出保险判断到行医的界限?如果患者因该决定而受到伤害,该保险计划是否应对医疗事故负责?这些是1999年35个州所考虑的问题,而今年至少有32个州正在努力应对这些问题,因为它们试图回应医生和患者抑制管理式医疗行业权力的压力。传统上,健康保险公司受到禁止“公司行医”的州法律的保护,这意味着患者唯一的 recourse 是根据“替代责任”理论提起诉讼。然而现在,立法者们正在辩论立法,以将医疗事故责任的范围从个体从业者扩大到保险公司及其保险计划本身。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验