• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

健康计划问责制:州和联邦举措。

Health plan accountability: state and federal initiatives.

作者信息

Seward W F, Shalgian C

出版信息

Bull Am Coll Surg. 1999 Jul;84(7):8-11.

PMID:11209643
Abstract

Patients' rights legislation is high on the agenda of more than a few legislators this year, both nationally and at the state level. Although many proposals are being considered by state and federal lawmakers, one of the more significant legislative measures under debate would hold health plans legally accountable for medical treatment decisions they make, control, or influence. Of course, under the current professional liability system, only physicians and hospitals are legally responsible for the quality of patient care. Not surprisingly, then, the expansion of professional liability law to include managed care organizations (MCOs) is a contentious issue.

摘要

今年,患者权利立法在许多国家和州级立法者的议程上都占据重要位置。尽管州和联邦立法者正在考虑许多提案,但正在辩论的一项更重要的立法措施是让健康计划对其做出、控制或影响的医疗决策承担法律责任。当然,在当前的职业责任制度下,只有医生和医院对患者护理质量承担法律责任。那么,毫不奇怪,将职业责任法扩大到包括管理式医疗组织(MCO)是一个有争议的问题。

相似文献

1
Health plan accountability: state and federal initiatives.健康计划问责制:州和联邦举措。
Bull Am Coll Surg. 1999 Jul;84(7):8-11.
2
Managed care liability.管理式医疗责任
Physician Exec. 1999 Mar-Apr;25(2):77-9.
3
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.挥舞着魔杖却不承担责任:允许利用审查医生推翻医生的医嘱,但保护他们免受通常与医学学位相关的法律风险。
Duke Law J. 2010 Feb;59(5):955-1000.
4
Tough act to follow.
Tex Med. 1998 Nov;94(11):78-83.
5
Consumer managed care appeals: are the available procedural protections fundamentally fair?消费者管理式医疗申诉:现有的程序保护措施从根本上来说公平吗?
J Health Law. 2000 Spring;33(2):287-354.
6
Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.“婴儿多伊”事件重演?美国卫生与公众服务部及2002年《出生时存活婴儿保护法》:关于规范新生儿医疗行为的警示
Pediatrics. 2005 Oct;116(4):e576-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1590.
7
The battle continues. Congress still wrestling with competing patients' rights bills.
Tex Med. 2001 Jul;97(7):30-3.
8
Leveling the playing field? The nation's first managed care liability law.
J Health Hosp Law. 1998 Winter;31(1):14-22.
9
Establishing external renew panels: a proactive or defensive measure?建立外部更新小组:是一种主动还是被动的措施?
Exec Solut Healthc Manag. 1999 Mar;2(3):2-3.
10
Finance, providers issue brief: insurer liability.金融、供应商发布简报:保险公司责任。
Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv. 2000 May 24:1-16.