Suppr超能文献

金融问题简报:保险公司责任:2003年年终报告

Finance issue brief: insurer liability: year end report-2003.

作者信息

MacEachern Lillian

出版信息

Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv. 2003 Dec 31:1-19.

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过失负责?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,以将医疗过失责任的范围从个体从业者扩大到保险公司和保险计划本身。

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