荷兰医疗保险纠纷解决和虚假法院

A. Exter
{"title":"荷兰医疗保险纠纷解决和虚假法院","authors":"A. Exter","doi":"10.7590/221354019X15538518338599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2006 Dutch health insurance reforms introduced an alternative mechanism to settle disputes. This so-called “binding advice” is a binding third-party ruling to resolve disputes on the denial of coverage and the refusal to reimburse health services. More than 12 years after it was introduced, the alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) regime gives reason for concern: legal criteria are interpreted differently by the ADR entity and the courts, thus causing inequalities in health care access under the Dutch Health Insurance Act. It is concluded that the privatisation of formal ad-judication has largely frustrated citizens claiming access to medical technologies satisfying the ‘international medical science and practice’ test. It is therefore recommended that citizens opt out for the default option, challenging health insurance disputes in court.","PeriodicalId":91323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical law and ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dutch Health Insurance Dispute Resolution And Fake Courts\",\"authors\":\"A. Exter\",\"doi\":\"10.7590/221354019X15538518338599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 2006 Dutch health insurance reforms introduced an alternative mechanism to settle disputes. This so-called “binding advice” is a binding third-party ruling to resolve disputes on the denial of coverage and the refusal to reimburse health services. More than 12 years after it was introduced, the alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) regime gives reason for concern: legal criteria are interpreted differently by the ADR entity and the courts, thus causing inequalities in health care access under the Dutch Health Insurance Act. It is concluded that the privatisation of formal ad-judication has largely frustrated citizens claiming access to medical technologies satisfying the ‘international medical science and practice’ test. It is therefore recommended that citizens opt out for the default option, challenging health insurance disputes in court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of medical law and ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of medical law and ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7590/221354019X15538518338599\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical law and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7590/221354019X15538518338599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
Dutch Health Insurance Dispute Resolution And Fake Courts
The 2006 Dutch health insurance reforms introduced an alternative mechanism to settle disputes. This so-called “binding advice” is a binding third-party ruling to resolve disputes on the denial of coverage and the refusal to reimburse health services. More than 12 years after it was introduced, the alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) regime gives reason for concern: legal criteria are interpreted differently by the ADR entity and the courts, thus causing inequalities in health care access under the Dutch Health Insurance Act. It is concluded that the privatisation of formal ad-judication has largely frustrated citizens claiming access to medical technologies satisfying the ‘international medical science and practice’ test. It is therefore recommended that citizens opt out for the default option, challenging health insurance disputes in court.
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
8. Reproduction Personal responsibility for health: the impact of digitalisation Prologue: Reflections on an Accidental Journey What's in a Name? Labelling Effects on Analysis of the Role of Law in Health Health Law in the UK as a Subset of Human Rights Law: Idealistic Aspiration or Coherent Reality?
×
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