Private Credentialing of Health Care Personnel: An Antitrust Perspective

1983 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-334
Author(s):  
Clark C. Havighurst ◽  
Nancy M. P. King

AbstractHaving argued in Part One against extensive judicial or regulatory interference with private personnel credentialing in the health care field, this Article now shifts its focus to emphasize the anticompetitive hazards inherent in credentialing as practiced by professional interests. Competitor-sponsored credentialing is shown to be a vital part of a larger cartel strategy to curb competition by standardizing personnel and services and controlling the flow of information to health care consumers. Instead of altering the conclusions reached in Part One, however, Part Two sets forth a new and hitherto unexplored agenda for antitrust enforcement, one that the authors believe will increase the quantity and quality of information available to consumers and offer a fairer competitive environment to individuals and groups disadvantaged by the denial of desirable credentials. The specific targets singled out for antitrust scrutiny are (1) the practice of "grandfathering," by which new candidates for credentials are required to meet tougher requirements than were met by existing credential holders; (2) agreements to standardize educational programs if they go beyond setting and applying accrediting standards and impair the freedom of institutions to decide independently whether to offer unaccredited training; (3) agreements by which independent certifying or accrediting bodies limit the nature or scope of competition among themselves; and (4) mergers and joint ventures in credentialing and accrediting. The legal theory supporting antitrust attacks in the latter two categories is strengthened by the apparently original insight that commercial information and opinion are themselves articles of commerce such that agreements and combinations restricting their nature and output can be characterized as restraints of trade. Among the many self-regulatory institutions in the health care field whose operation or sponsorship is called into question by the analysis herein are the leading medical specialty boards, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, various accrediting and certifying bodies in the allied health occupations, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.

1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-200
Author(s):  
James W. Rankin ◽  
Bruce A. Hubbard

In a two-part article entitled “Private Credentialing of Health Care Personnel: An Antitrust Perspective,” Clark C. Havighurst and Nancy ‘M. P. King purport to set forth “a new and previously unexplored agenda for antitrust enforcement, one that the Authors believe will increase the quantity and quality of information available to consumers … .” Having concluded in Part One of the Article that antitrust courts and regulators should exercise only limited supervision over private credentialing in the health care field, in large part because of their “important procompetitive purpose of supplying useful information and advice to consumers,” the Authors reverse field and seek to use the antitrust laws to call into question the activities and structure of leading medical specialty boards, the Liasion Council on Medical Education, various accrediting, certifying and credentialing bodies in medicine and the allied health professions, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH).


1995 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Morgan Capron

Over the last decade, standards for when and how to undertake a wide range of medical interventions have poured forth from medical specialty groups, commercial and nonprofit organizations, and state and federal panels. Known by a variety of names—from practice parameters to clinical guidelines—and intended for a range of purposes—from diminishing the incidence of maloccurences in hospitals to cutting the costs of health care—these guidelines share one important feature: the intention of decreasing the range of variation in medical practice. Such standardization immediately appeals to anyone interested in improving the quality of health care and, in particular, reducing inappropriate medical interventions, in light of the difficulties for a conscientious physician today in adhering to the best standard of practice when faced with ever increasing medical knowledge and the growing number and complexity of diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic interventions.


Author(s):  
N.P. Pavliuk

One of the major problems in modern health care are cerebrovascular disease, which occupy a leading place in the structure of mortality and disability in the population. Among the many clinical features of chronic ischemia of the brain is a key manifestation of cognitive impairment that often determine the severity of condition and quality of life of the patient and his relatives. Diagnosis of cognitive impairment is very important, as the timely appointment of therapy may prevent or at least delay the development of dementia.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Alex Fleming ◽  

The overall quality of life in palliative and hospice care facilities differs greatly from that in intensive care units. For example, the use of mechanical ventilation and powerful anesthetics and sedatives in the ICU can often leave otherwise informed patients incapacitated and unable to make their own health care decisions. Thus, discussions between patients and families about treatment options can be difficult, and families and surrogates are often left to do this on their own Treatments performed in the ICU are likely to be disproportionate to their needs, adding to suffering and distrust on the part of family members. To avoid this, it is important for health care providers to assess patients early and often and to discuss the proportionality of different treatments with their families and surrogates. Additionally, providers should encourage palliative and hospice care as alternatives to the many costly and likely disproportionate interventions taken in the ICU.


2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy T. Campbell ◽  
Jay Sicklick ◽  
Paula Galowitz ◽  
Randye Retkin ◽  
Stewart B. Fleishman

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) — collaborative endeavors between health care clinicians and lawyers to more effectively address issues impacting health care — have proliferated over the past decade. The goal of this interdisciplinary approach is to improve the health outcomes and quality of life of patients and families, recognizing the many non-medical influences on health care and thus the value of an interdisciplinary team to enhance health. There are currently over 180 MLPs at over 200 hospitals and health centers in the United States, with increasing federal interest and potential legislative support of this model.This article examines the unique, interrelated, and often similar (although at times conflicting) ethical issues that confront the clinical and legal partners involved in MLPs. We contend that the ethical precepts of the clinical and legal professions should be seen as opportunities, not barriers, to further the interdisciplinary nature of MLPs.


1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 593-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliott A. Krause

Can regulation work in health services, given the present political context? General issues in the regulatory process are discussed, followed by a consideration of the relevance of these issues to the health care field. Regulatory processes are reviewed for the United States in four areas: credentialling of people, surveillance of delivery systems, quality of materials and technology, and rate-setting or cost control. It is concluded that the process cannot work. Four alternatives are presented and briefly evaluated: tinkering, centralized regulation, national health service, and general nationalization of most major economic sectors.


2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Hoodless ◽  
Lisa Bourke ◽  
Frank Evans

In rural Australia, models of primary health care are as diverse as the communities themselves. Differing facilities, health disciplines, individual providers, local contexts, funding models and reporting make measuring quality of care very difficult. This paper proposes that quality can be measured in three ways - through industry driven benchmarks, through consumer satisfaction, and through consumer and community decision-making. Further, this paper argues that quality of care needs to include a consumer domain. If consumers are able to influence how they receive support, care and/or treatment, they are more likely to receive appropriate services and interventions and have positive outcomes. A case study is presented to discuss how the three levels of quality are applied within a rural organisation, highlighting the challenges and effort required to sustain genuine community participation. The paper concludes with a discussion of these issues and the many challenges embedded in consumer-driven approaches to quality of care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document