Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on "Justices Restrict Right to Sue HMO: Parties Can't Allege Malpractice if Insurance Refuses to Pay for Care". Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page review of this June 2004 article by Lisa Rapaport published in "The Bee". The author highlights the main points presented in the article and emphasizes that is useful not only in detailing the Supreme Court ruling but also in outlining the set of circumstances under which it occurred. It is just as useful, however, in the fact that it assesses what the ruling could mean to Americans.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AM2_PPhmoArt.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
titled "Justices Restrict Right to Sue HMO: Parties Cant Allege Malpractice if Insurance Refuses to Pay for Care" Lisa Rapaport (staff writer for "The Bee") reports on a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared that even though parties might be injured by a health plans refusal to pay for certain medical procedures, those parties cannot initiate malpractice suits
against the insurer. This ruling essentially flies in the face of the laws of at least ten states which are in place to guarantee core patient rights. Although
the ruling was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the justices were not divided on the issue. They voted nine to zero to prevent malpractice suits even though that prevention
would leave millions of Americans with no legal reprieve against insurer actions that many feel is inexcusable, actions prominent California Democrats and many others feel have the potential to result
in significant health and economic impacts alike. In California alone some 18 million residents are insured under HMOs. The ruling by the Supreme Court has the potential to
adversely affect each and every one of them. This ruling specifically rejected two separate Texas lawsuits where insured parties had sued
their HMO for failure to provide procedures or care recommended by their physicians. One party was dismissed from the hospital because her HMO refused to pay for more than
one days residence there in spite of the fact that her physician had ordered a longer stay to allow her to recuperate fully from a hysterectomy. That patient suffered
complications she attributed to the shortened stay. The other case involved an HMOs refusal to provide a prescribed medicine. The patient was forced by his HMO to try
...