Wielding the Wand without Facing the Music: Allowing Utilization Review Physicians to Trump Doctors' Orders, but Protecting them from the Legal Risk Ordinarily Attached to the Medical Degree

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2010

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Repository Usage Stats

262
views
215
downloads

Abstract

This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care delivered to the patient, but are governed by two very different liability regimes. A patient who suffers an adverse outcome may sue his physician in tort, while a patient who suffers from a lack of coverage may generally sue his insurer only under contract. In other words, when a patient suffers from inadequate care, his potential remedies vary considerably depending on whether the physician or the insurer is the defendant. This discrepancy in liability is the consequence of the federal law governing the administration of employer-sponsored health plans, and its extensive preemption of related state law. Many commentators have called for legal reform to address the distortion of managed care liability that results, arguing that managed care liability must be consistent or that wronged beneficiaries must have access to meaningful remedies. This Note argues that the federal law governing managed care organizations is problematic for a different reason and that the first step toward reform may be more elementary than previously suggested. Specifically, it suggests that the law governing insurers' coverage decisions is inconsistent with the law governing treatment recommendations. Patients suffer the same harm from error in both contexts-but because they can recover substantially more from treating physicians, doctors are named as defendants even when the insurers make errors. Further, this Note argues that simply aligning these two standards might offer a gateway to reform.

Department

Description

Provenance

Citation

Record,Katherine L.. 2010. Wielding the Wand without Facing the Music: Allowing Utilization Review Physicians to Trump Doctors' Orders, but Protecting them from the Legal Risk Ordinarily Attached to the Medical Degree. Duke law journal 59(5): 955-1000.

Citation

Record, Katherine L (2010). Wielding the Wand without Facing the Music: Allowing Utilization Review Physicians to Trump Doctors' Orders, but Protecting them from the Legal Risk Ordinarily Attached to the Medical Degree. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4213.


Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.