Patient Advocacy and Termination from Managed Care Organizations: Do State Laws Protecting Health Care Professional Advocacy Make Any Difference?

L. Fentiman
{"title":"Patient Advocacy and Termination from Managed Care Organizations: Do State Laws Protecting Health Care Professional Advocacy Make Any Difference?","authors":"L. Fentiman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.403620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the impact of state laws aimed at protecting health care professionals. During the last decade, as managed care has profoundly changed the way that health care is delivered in the U.S., many patients have complained about denial of care and their inability to challenge those denials. At the same time, some physicians have taken on the role of advocate, arguing on their patients' behalf for more and better care. More than fifteen states have enacted laws declaring that health care professionals (HCPs) cannot be terminated from or otherwise penalized by managed care organizations (MCOs) because of their advocacy. The article explores the history, implementation, and impact of these state advocacy protection statutes, looking at both substantive and procedural obstacles to their enforcement. The article is in four parts. The first section provides an introduction to the concept of advocacy and fiduciary duty, both at common law, and as presently interpreted. This introduction also looks at the phenomenon of HCPs' \"deselection,\" i.e., the termination or non-renewal of HCP contracts with MCOs, emphasizing that the plural of anecdote is not data. The second section surveys the legislative and common law landscape surrounding HCP advocacy, and then examines state statutes that either explicitly or implicitly protect HCP advocacy on behalf of patients. The article next considers whether advocacy protection laws have achieved their purposes, given the substantial theoretical and practical barriers to their implementation, and discusses both ERISA and Medicare preemption as potential hurdles to successful litigation. I conclude that advocacy protection laws have had only a limited in terrorem effect, making it somewhat harder for MCOs to terminate HCPs who advocate for their patients. I argue that current laws are inadequate to ensure that health care professionals will vigorously advocate for their patients, and suggest alternative means to encourage and support patient advocacy, in order to enhance the quality of health care. Because this work is not yet published, the author welcomes all feedback and other suggestions for improvement.","PeriodicalId":168354,"journal":{"name":"Torts & Products Liability Law","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Torts & Products Liability Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.403620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article examines the impact of state laws aimed at protecting health care professionals. During the last decade, as managed care has profoundly changed the way that health care is delivered in the U.S., many patients have complained about denial of care and their inability to challenge those denials. At the same time, some physicians have taken on the role of advocate, arguing on their patients' behalf for more and better care. More than fifteen states have enacted laws declaring that health care professionals (HCPs) cannot be terminated from or otherwise penalized by managed care organizations (MCOs) because of their advocacy. The article explores the history, implementation, and impact of these state advocacy protection statutes, looking at both substantive and procedural obstacles to their enforcement. The article is in four parts. The first section provides an introduction to the concept of advocacy and fiduciary duty, both at common law, and as presently interpreted. This introduction also looks at the phenomenon of HCPs' "deselection," i.e., the termination or non-renewal of HCP contracts with MCOs, emphasizing that the plural of anecdote is not data. The second section surveys the legislative and common law landscape surrounding HCP advocacy, and then examines state statutes that either explicitly or implicitly protect HCP advocacy on behalf of patients. The article next considers whether advocacy protection laws have achieved their purposes, given the substantial theoretical and practical barriers to their implementation, and discusses both ERISA and Medicare preemption as potential hurdles to successful litigation. I conclude that advocacy protection laws have had only a limited in terrorem effect, making it somewhat harder for MCOs to terminate HCPs who advocate for their patients. I argue that current laws are inadequate to ensure that health care professionals will vigorously advocate for their patients, and suggest alternative means to encourage and support patient advocacy, in order to enhance the quality of health care. Because this work is not yet published, the author welcomes all feedback and other suggestions for improvement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者倡导和终止管理医疗机构:国家法律保护卫生保健专业倡导有什么区别吗?
本文探讨旨在保护卫生保健专业人员的州法律的影响。在过去的十年里,由于管理式医疗已经深刻地改变了美国医疗保健的提供方式,许多病人抱怨得不到医疗服务,而且他们无法对这些拒绝提出质疑。与此同时,一些医生扮演了倡导者的角色,代表他们的病人争取更多更好的护理。超过15个州颁布了法律,宣布医疗保健专业人员(hcp)不能因为他们的主张而被管理式医疗组织(mco)解雇或以其他方式受到处罚。本文探讨了这些州倡导保护法规的历史、实施和影响,并考察了其实施的实质性和程序性障碍。本文分为四个部分。第一部分介绍了辩护和信义义务的概念,包括普通法和目前的解释。这篇引言还探讨了HCP的“取消选择”现象,即终止或不再续签与mco的HCP合同,强调轶事的复数形式不是数据。第二部分调查了围绕HCP倡导的立法和普通法景观,然后检查了代表患者明确或隐含地保护HCP倡导的州法规。接下来,文章考虑到倡导保护法律是否达到了其目的,考虑到其实施的实质性理论和实践障碍,并讨论了ERISA和Medicare先发制人作为成功诉讼的潜在障碍。我的结论是,维权保护法只产生了有限的恐怖效应,这使得mco更难以终止为患者辩护的hcp。我认为,现行法律不足以确保卫生保健专业人员积极为患者发声,并提出了鼓励和支持患者发声的替代办法,以提高卫生保健的质量。由于本作品尚未发表,作者欢迎大家的反馈和其他改进建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Dynamic Model of Lawsuit Joinder and Settlement Quantitative Proof of Reputational Harm Injuries, Damages and a Puzzle: Can an Effect Ever Precede its Cause Efficiency, Fairness, and the Economic Analysis of Tort Law Fault at the Contract-Tort Interface
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1