管理式医疗和忠诚

D. Maher
{"title":"管理式医疗和忠诚","authors":"D. Maher","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.407122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Managed care is often faulted for requiring physicians to abandon their traditional fiduciary responsibility to individual patients. Physician loyalty is said to be divided between a concern for patient benefit on the one hand and for financial advantages accruing to the physician personally or to the group of plan participants on the other. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case has supported this development by deciding that physicians are now responsible to function simultaneously as clinical caretakers and benefits administrators. It is granted that this situation gives rise to legitimate concerns about the potential for undermining patient trust in physicians and yet there are also reasons to believe that this is a step in the right direction. Specifically, by requiring doctors to make \"mixed\" treatment and eligibility decisions, the Court has pointed the way for people to think and make decisions about health and health care without abstracting from the cost of that care.","PeriodicalId":73765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care law & policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Managed Care and Undividing Loyalties\",\"authors\":\"D. Maher\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.407122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Managed care is often faulted for requiring physicians to abandon their traditional fiduciary responsibility to individual patients. Physician loyalty is said to be divided between a concern for patient benefit on the one hand and for financial advantages accruing to the physician personally or to the group of plan participants on the other. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case has supported this development by deciding that physicians are now responsible to function simultaneously as clinical caretakers and benefits administrators. It is granted that this situation gives rise to legitimate concerns about the potential for undermining patient trust in physicians and yet there are also reasons to believe that this is a step in the right direction. Specifically, by requiring doctors to make \\\"mixed\\\" treatment and eligibility decisions, the Court has pointed the way for people to think and make decisions about health and health care without abstracting from the cost of that care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.407122\",\"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 health care law & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.407122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

管理式医疗常常因要求医生放弃对个别病人的传统受托责任而受到指责。据说,医生的忠诚分为两部分,一方面是对病人利益的关注,另一方面是对医生个人或计划参与者群体的经济利益的关注。最近美国最高法院的一个案例支持了这一发展,决定医生现在有责任同时担任临床护理人员和福利管理人员。可以肯定的是,这种情况引起了人们对可能破坏患者对医生信任的合理担忧,但也有理由相信这是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。具体地说,通过要求医生作出"混合"治疗和资格决定,最高法院指出了人们思考和作出关于健康和保健的决定的方式,而不是从这种保健的费用中抽象化。
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
Managed Care and Undividing Loyalties
Managed care is often faulted for requiring physicians to abandon their traditional fiduciary responsibility to individual patients. Physician loyalty is said to be divided between a concern for patient benefit on the one hand and for financial advantages accruing to the physician personally or to the group of plan participants on the other. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case has supported this development by deciding that physicians are now responsible to function simultaneously as clinical caretakers and benefits administrators. It is granted that this situation gives rise to legitimate concerns about the potential for undermining patient trust in physicians and yet there are also reasons to believe that this is a step in the right direction. Specifically, by requiring doctors to make "mixed" treatment and eligibility decisions, the Court has pointed the way for people to think and make decisions about health and health care without abstracting from the cost of that care.
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
When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research. REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW. FAIR BENEFITS AND ITS CRITICS: WHO IS RIGHT? DO ETHICS DEMAND EVALUATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAWS? SHIFTING SCIENTIFIC SANDS AND THE CASE OF YOUTH SPORTS-RELATED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY LAWS. Fragmentation in Mental Health Benefits and Services: A Preliminary Examination into Consumption and Outcomes
×
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