Duke Law J. 2010 Feb;59(5):955-1000.
This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care delivered to the patient, but are governed by two very different liability regimes. A patient who suffers an adverse outcome may sue his physician in tort, while a patient who suffers from a lack of coverage may generally sue his insurer only under contract. In other words, when a patient suffers from inadequate care, his potential remedies vary considerably depending on whether the physician or the insurer is the defendant. This discrepancy in liability is the consequence of the federal law governing the administration of employer-sponsored health plans, and its extensive preemption of related state law. Many commentators have called for legal reform to address the distortion of managed care liability that results, arguing that managed care liability must be consistent or that wronged beneficiaries must have access to meaningful remedies. This Note argues that the federal law governing managed care organizations is problematic for a different reason and that the first step toward reform may be more elementary than previously suggested. Specifically, it suggests that the law governing insurers' coverage decisions is inconsistent with the law governing treatment recommendations. Patients suffer the same harm from error in both contexts-but because they can recover substantially more from treating physicians, doctors are named as defendants even when the insurers make errors. Further, this Note argues that simply aligning these two standards might offer a gateway to reform.
本备忘录指出了指导患者护理决策的法律之间存在差异。寻求第三方支付的治疗费用,患者不仅需要医生规定的治疗方案,还需要保险公司确认费用在医学上是必要的,或者在患者的计划范围内得到覆盖。这两个决定都直接影响了最终为患者提供的护理,但受两种截然不同的责任制度的约束。如果患者因不良后果而遭受损失,他可能会以侵权为由起诉他的医生,而如果患者因缺乏覆盖范围而遭受损失,他通常只能根据合同起诉他的保险公司。换句话说,当患者的护理不足时,他的潜在补救措施因被告是医生还是保险公司而有很大的不同。这种责任差异是管理式医疗保健计划的联邦法律管理的结果,以及它对相关州法律的广泛预先裁定。许多评论员呼吁进行法律改革,以解决由此导致的管理式医疗保健责任扭曲问题,他们认为管理式医疗保健责任必须一致,或者受害的受益人必须有获得有意义的补救措施的途径。本备忘录认为,管理式医疗保健组织的联邦法律存在一个不同的问题,改革的第一步可能比之前建议的更为基础。具体来说,它表明,管理保险公司承保决定的法律与管理治疗建议的法律不一致。在这两种情况下,患者都会因错误而遭受同样的伤害——但由于他们可以从治疗医生那里获得更多的赔偿,因此即使是保险公司犯了错误,医生也会被列为被告。此外,本备忘录认为,仅仅使这两个标准保持一致,可能就为改革提供了一个途径。