医生和管理式医疗机构的医疗事故责任

Jennifer H. Arlen, W. Macleod
{"title":"医生和管理式医疗机构的医疗事故责任","authors":"Jennifer H. Arlen, W. Macleod","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.453543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article provides an economic analysis of optimal negligence liability for physicians and Managed Care Organizations explicitly modeling the role of physician expertise and MCO authority. We find that even when patients anticipate the risks imposed on them, physicians and MCOs do not take optimal care absent sanctions. Markets and contracts do not provide optimal incentives because market prices are determined at the moment of contracting, but physician expertise and MCO authority depend on non-contractable actions taken post-contract. Negligence liability can induce optimal care if damage rules are optimal. Optimality requires that MCOs be held liable for both their own negligent treatment coverage decisions and for negligence by affiliated physicians. Moreover, we find that MCOs should be liable even when they do not exert direct control over physicians. Finally, we show that it may be optimal to preclude physicians or MCOs from obtaining liability waivers from patients, even when patients are fully-informed and waive only when it is in their interests to do so at that moment.","PeriodicalId":423843,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Malpractice Liability for Physicians and Managed Care Organizations\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer H. Arlen, W. Macleod\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.453543\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article provides an economic analysis of optimal negligence liability for physicians and Managed Care Organizations explicitly modeling the role of physician expertise and MCO authority. We find that even when patients anticipate the risks imposed on them, physicians and MCOs do not take optimal care absent sanctions. Markets and contracts do not provide optimal incentives because market prices are determined at the moment of contracting, but physician expertise and MCO authority depend on non-contractable actions taken post-contract. Negligence liability can induce optimal care if damage rules are optimal. Optimality requires that MCOs be held liable for both their own negligent treatment coverage decisions and for negligence by affiliated physicians. Moreover, we find that MCOs should be liable even when they do not exert direct control over physicians. Finally, we show that it may be optimal to preclude physicians or MCOs from obtaining liability waivers from patients, even when patients are fully-informed and waive only when it is in their interests to do so at that moment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":423843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.453543\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.453543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

摘要

这篇文章提供了医生和管理医疗机构的最佳疏忽责任的经济分析明确建模医生的专业知识和MCO权威的作用。我们发现,即使患者预见到强加给他们的风险,医生和mco也不会在没有制裁的情况下采取最佳护理。市场和合同不能提供最优的激励,因为市场价格是在签约时决定的,但医生的专业知识和MCO的权威依赖于签约后采取的不可签约的行动。如果损害规则是最优的,过失责任可以诱导最优护理。最优化要求mco对他们自己疏忽的治疗覆盖决定和附属医生的疏忽负责。此外,我们发现mco应该承担责任,即使他们没有对医生施加直接控制。最后,我们表明,排除医生或mco从患者那里获得责任豁免可能是最优的,即使患者完全知情,并且只有在符合他们利益的情况下才这样做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Malpractice Liability for Physicians and Managed Care Organizations
This Article provides an economic analysis of optimal negligence liability for physicians and Managed Care Organizations explicitly modeling the role of physician expertise and MCO authority. We find that even when patients anticipate the risks imposed on them, physicians and MCOs do not take optimal care absent sanctions. Markets and contracts do not provide optimal incentives because market prices are determined at the moment of contracting, but physician expertise and MCO authority depend on non-contractable actions taken post-contract. Negligence liability can induce optimal care if damage rules are optimal. Optimality requires that MCOs be held liable for both their own negligent treatment coverage decisions and for negligence by affiliated physicians. Moreover, we find that MCOs should be liable even when they do not exert direct control over physicians. Finally, we show that it may be optimal to preclude physicians or MCOs from obtaining liability waivers from patients, even when patients are fully-informed and waive only when it is in their interests to do so at that moment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Do They Do It For The Money? Do Country Level Investor Protections Impact Security Level Contract Design? Evidence from Foreign Bond Covenants Innovation Activities and Competitiveness: Empirical Evidence on the Behaviour of Firms in the New EU Member States and Candidate Countries Directors' Duties Under the UK Companies Act 2006 and the Impact of the Company's Operations on the Environment Compensation Consultants and CEO Pay: UK Evidence
×
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