You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 284 No. 12, September 27, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Supreme Court's View of the Managed Care Industry's Liability for Adverse Patient Outcomes

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In a recent article in THE JOURNAL,1 Mr Pomfret and I described the structure of the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and how ERISA litigation reduces physician autonomy. In a subsequent development, the Supreme Court recently decided Pegram v Herdrich, 530 US_ (2000), a case that further addresses these issues.

Herdrich argued that she was not provided with an ultrasound diagnosis in a timely manner because her managed care plan's financial incentives encouraged her physician to delay the procedure. During the delay, her appendix ruptured, causing peritonitis. After being awarded $35,000 in state court, she sued under ERISA, arguing that the plan's financial incentives breached a fiduciary duty to act in the patient's best interests.

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that patients covered by an ERISA plan cannot sue to challenge managed care organizations' use of financial incentives. For now, the Court left . . . [Full Text of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

ERISA Litigation and Physician Autonomy
Peter D. Jacobson and Scott D. Pomfret
JAMA. 2000;283(7):921-926.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Accounts of HIV Seroconversion Among Substance-Using Gay and Bisexual Men
Aguinaldo et al.
Qual Health Res 2009;19:1395-1406.
ABSTRACT  

Comprehensive care and HIV prophylaxis after sexual assault in rural South Africa: the Refentse intervention study
Kim et al.
BMJ 2009;338:b515-b515.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Health Care-Based Interventions for Women Who Have Experienced Sexual Violence: A Review of the Literature
Martin et al.
Trauma Violence Abuse 2007;8:3-18.
ABSTRACT  

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Postexposure Prophylaxis for Adolescents and Children
Merchant and Keshavarz
Pediatrics 2001;108 :e38-e38.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Supreme Court and Bedside Rationing
Bloche and Jacobson
JAMA 2000;284:2776-2779.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.