Morreim E Haavi
University of Tennessee, Department of Human Values and Ethics, 956 Court Avenue, Suite B324, Memphis, TN 38163, USA.
Mt Sinai J Med. 2002 Nov;69(6):370-7.
Professionalism in medicine requires a reasonable measure of freedom for physicians to determine patients needs based on their own judgment. However, because virtually every medical decision is also a spending decision, third-party payers concerned about rising health care costs have introduced cost-containment tactics that significantly limit physicians accustomed autonomy. In response, groups of physicians have filed class-action lawsuits against managed care plans, alleging causes of action such as fraud, breach of contract, extortion, and violations of federal RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law. Such litigation may have merits, but it also faces significant obstacles, in part because the contracts involved may not actually have promised the broad measure of clinical autonomy that the physicians allege was promised, then denied. As physicians seek to restore and retain their professional autonomy, it will be important for them to be increasingly proactive in structuring or modifying the contracts under whose terms they practice as some physicians have successfully done.
医学领域的专业性要求医生有合理程度的自由,以便根据自己的判断来确定患者的需求。然而,由于几乎每一项医疗决策同时也是一项费用支出决策,担心医疗成本不断上升的第三方支付方采取了成本控制策略,这极大地限制了医生习以为常的自主权。作为回应,医生群体对管理式医疗计划提起了集体诉讼,指控诸如欺诈、违约、敲诈勒索以及违反联邦《反有组织犯罪法》等行为。此类诉讼可能有其合理性,但也面临重大障碍,部分原因在于所涉及的合同实际上可能并未承诺医生所声称的那种广泛的临床自主权,即先是承诺,而后又予以否认。随着医生们寻求恢复并保留其职业自主权,对他们来说,像一些医生成功做到的那样,在构建或修改其执业所依据的合同条款方面更加积极主动将变得至关重要。