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

dc.contributor.author

Record, Katherine L

dc.date.accessioned

2011-06-21T17:27:40Z

dc.date.available

2011-06-21T17:27:40Z

dc.date.issued

2010

dc.description.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.

dc.description.version

Version of Record

dc.identifier.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.

dc.identifier.issn

0012-7086

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4213

dc.language.iso

en_US

dc.publisher

DUKE UNIV

dc.relation.isversionof
dc.relation.journal

Duke law journal

dc.subject

managed-care

dc.subject

health-care

dc.subject

liability

dc.subject

systems

dc.subject

expenditures

dc.subject

preemption

dc.subject

insurance

dc.subject

safety

dc.subject

reform

dc.subject

era

dc.subject

law

dc.title

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

dc.title.alternative
dc.type

Other article

duke.date.pubdate

2010-2-0

duke.description.issue

5

duke.description.volume

59

pubs.begin-page

955

pubs.end-page

1000

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
274511700003.pdf
Size:
257.43 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format