How to Exercise Integrity in Medical Billing: Don't Distort Prices, Don't Free-Ride on Other Physicians.

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhad043
Christopher Langston
{"title":"How to Exercise Integrity in Medical Billing: Don't Distort Prices, Don't Free-Ride on Other Physicians.","authors":"Christopher Langston","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhad043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper proposes that billing gamesmanship occurs when physicians free-ride on the billing practices of other physicians. Gamesmanship is non-universalizable and does not exercise a competitive advantage; consequently, it distorts prices and allocates resources inefficiently. This explains why gamesmanship is wrong. This explanation differs from the recent proposal of Heath (2020. Ethical issues in physician billing under fee-for-service plans. J. Med. Philos. 45(1):86-104) that gamesmanship is wrong because of specific features of health care and of health insurance. These features are aggravating factors but do not explain gamesmanship's primary wrong-making feature, which is to cause diffuse harm not traceable to any particular patient or insurer. This conclusion has important consequences for how medical schools and professional organizations encourage integrity in billing. To avoid free-riding, physicians should ask themselves, \"could all physicians bill this way?\" and if not, \"does the patient benefit from the distinctive service I am providing under this code?\" If both answers are \"no,\" physicians should refrain from the billing practice in question.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10787110/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad043","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper proposes that billing gamesmanship occurs when physicians free-ride on the billing practices of other physicians. Gamesmanship is non-universalizable and does not exercise a competitive advantage; consequently, it distorts prices and allocates resources inefficiently. This explains why gamesmanship is wrong. This explanation differs from the recent proposal of Heath (2020. Ethical issues in physician billing under fee-for-service plans. J. Med. Philos. 45(1):86-104) that gamesmanship is wrong because of specific features of health care and of health insurance. These features are aggravating factors but do not explain gamesmanship's primary wrong-making feature, which is to cause diffuse harm not traceable to any particular patient or insurer. This conclusion has important consequences for how medical schools and professional organizations encourage integrity in billing. To avoid free-riding, physicians should ask themselves, "could all physicians bill this way?" and if not, "does the patient benefit from the distinctive service I am providing under this code?" If both answers are "no," physicians should refrain from the billing practice in question.

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
如何在医疗账单中保持诚信:不要扭曲价格,不要搭其他医生的便车。
本文提出,当医生免费搭乘其他医生的计费实践时,就会出现计费策略。游戏技巧不具有普遍性,也不具有竞争优势;因此,它扭曲了价格,资源配置效率低下。这就解释了为什么游戏技巧是错误的。这一解释不同于Heath(2020)最近提出的建议。医生收费服务计划中的道德问题。J.Med.Philos。45(1):8-104)由于医疗保健和医疗保险的特定特征,这种策略是错误的。这些特征是加重处罚的因素,但并不能解释游戏技巧的主要错误制造特征,即造成无法追溯到任何特定患者或保险公司的扩散伤害。这一结论对医学院和专业组织如何鼓励账单的完整性具有重要意义。为了避免搭便车,医生应该问问自己,“所有医生都能这样计费吗?”如果不能,“患者是否从我根据该准则提供的独特服务中受益?”如果两个答案都是“否”,医生应该避免有问题的计费做法。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
期刊最新文献
A Defense of the Obligation to Keep Promises to the Dead. Why Moral Bioenhancement Cannot Reliably Produce Virtue. Impairment Arguments, Interests, and Circularity. Disability and Achievement: A Reply to Campbell, Nyholm, and Walter. Organ Donation by the Imminently Dead: Addressing the Organ Shortage and the Dead Donor Rule.
×
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