03.08.2013 Views

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

do cost-cutting that the physicians believe would injure patients, or when the plan<br />

just cuts the most expensive physicians, with no efforts to determine if their<br />

expenditures were valid.<br />

To date, there has only been one successful case, Harper v. <strong>Health</strong>source. [Harper v.<br />

<strong>Health</strong>source N.H., Inc., 674 A.2d 962 (N.H. 1996).] Dr. Harper alleged that he was<br />

terminated because the plan resisted his efforts to provide proper patient care. The<br />

court found that New Hampshire did not allow terminations that violated public<br />

policy, <strong>and</strong> that various state regulations established that there was a policy<br />

protecting the health of MCO patients. The court held the following:<br />

Harper is entitled to proceed upon the merits of his claim that <strong>Health</strong>source’s<br />

decision to terminate its relationship with him was made in bad faith or<br />

violated public policy. In his petition, he asserted that his efforts to correct<br />

errors made in patient records played a role in <strong>Health</strong>source’s decision, <strong>and</strong><br />

he argues on appeal that public policy should condemn “an insurance<br />

company which, upon receipt of a letter from a medical provider asking for<br />

assistance in correcting ... records of patient treatments, terminates the<br />

doctor’s services.” [Id. at 967.]<br />

Subsequent courts have not adopted Harper, limiting it to the special circumstances<br />

of New Hampshire law. 14 In the absence of specific state laws or regulations, there<br />

are few limits on the rights of MCOs to terminate physicians’ contracts without<br />

judicial review. At this time, a physician’s only protection will have to be in the terms<br />

of the contract with the MCO <strong>and</strong> any due process that is provided as part of that<br />

contract. There are many legal challenges to the unfettered power of MCOs in<br />

progress, however it is likely that public concern with the quality of MCO care will<br />

force changes in this area.<br />

G. References - Peer Review<br />

Ankney RN, Coil JA. Residents’ knowledge of the National Practitioner Data Bank.<br />

Acad Med. 1994;69:243.<br />

Ankney RN, Coil JA, Kolff J, Esper E. NPDB: what physicians don’t know can hurt<br />

them. Pa Med. 1994;97:10–14.<br />

Ankney RN, Coil JA, Kolff J, Esper E. Physician underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the National<br />

Practitioner Data Bank. South Med J. 1995;88:200–203.<br />

Bok S. Impaired physicians: what should patients know? Camb Q <strong>Health</strong>c Ethics.<br />

1993;2:331–340.<br />

Brouillette JN. Bilateral deselection. J Fla Med Assoc. 1995;82:423.<br />

Cohen RJ. Managed care <strong>and</strong> the physician–patient relationship: implications for peer<br />

review. Md Med J. 1997;46:91– 93.<br />

Corsino BV, Morrow DH, Wallace CJ. Quality improvement <strong>and</strong> substance abuse:<br />

456

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!