Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction In CHA Lawsuit
Medical News Today
August 4, 2006
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carl J. West has rejected a request from the California Hospital Association (CHA) to prohibit Blue Cross of California (Blue Cross) from paying differing fees to physicians who perform colonoscopies in hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs).
The CHA filed suit against Blue Cross in June, claiming its practice of paying an additional fee to network physicians who perform colonoscopies at ASCs and less for those performed in hospitals amounted to an unfair business practice that could prove harmful to patients.
In denying a request for a preliminary injunction against Blue Cross, Judge West declared that the CHA has “provided no evidence demonstrating that the policy will interfere with a physician’s medical opinion as to what is best for his or her patient.”
According to Blue Cross, the price range for these procedures is dramatic.
Hospitals typically charge two to three times more for a colonoscopy compared to ambulatory surgery centers.
“Judge West’s ruling goes a long way toward recognizing that the CHA lawsuit is really a matter of potential lost revenue for hospitals, not about patient safety,” said Josh Valdez, senior vice president of health care management for Blue Cross of California. “We strive to ensure our more than
7 million enrollees statewide receive quality health care. This policy is intended to eliminate cost barriers for our members and create an environment where patients can receive this important procedure in as convenient a manner as possible. Encouraging procedures such as colonoscopies to be performed in an ASC is consistent with that mission.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=48758
Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD
Advocates of universal public insurance often dismiss, or maybe even condemn, one of the attributes of private, for-profit insurers: they make excellent business decisions. Paying physicians a modest fee for agreeing to use a lower cost facility saves Blue Cross millions of dollars, part of which will be used to slow the rate of premium increases for Blue Cross members, and part to improve the return for their investors. In the amoral world of the business community, this is exactly what they should be doing.
What about the physician? Is accepting an explicit payment that is dependent on which competing facility you will use, and not related to the professional services rendered, an amoral act? If the physician also has a proprietary interest in that facility, is accepting profits for this self-serving referral also an amoral act?
Commingling business income with professional income is troubling. Many of us would insist that the physician fee be the same for the same service, and not dependent on the facility used. Some of us would insist that the competing facility be non-profit thereby avoiding the self-referral conflict of interest. Others would take the opposite view that, in this age of third party control of compensation, any additional business arrangement that can increase physician income should be acceptable.
Under a single payer system, during price and fee negotiation, it is difficult to know the extent to which an amoral business ethic would be interjected. But one thing is certain, the process would be based on what is in the best interests of the patients and what is fair for the health care providers, and not what is in the interests of the private insurers.