Re: Interesting
- From: "DJGordon" <danigordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:20:43 -0500
I haven't gotten into the steps yet, so I don't know what they all are.
Dani
"Barbara Carlson" <bbcarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:svOdneU6aZcjaDnfRVn-vg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The only times any of the doctors transcribe for have refused to continue
> treatment is when the patient has been blatantly noncompliant, or they
> have been belligerent in the office in an unreasonable manner--caused a
> scene over something or the like. It has been very rare, but when they do
> they send a certified letter--return receipt, to the patient stating they
> will no longer continue to treat them after a certain date--usually about
> 30 days, or effective immediately except for emergency treatment.
>
> In a number of cases patients without insurance will be given referral to
> a clinic where they can obtain treatment, and the doctor, or staff, will
> call and assist in making the appointment. They will be given essential
> primary treatment if required.
>
> Don't know if that meets specifics or not, and I suspect the law may vary
> in different states as well.
>
> Barb C.
> "DJGordon" <danigordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:vs5pe.59659$6k7.15375@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>A while back in one thread or another that came to a disagreement, there
>>was a discussion about whether a doctor HAS to keep treating a patient or
>>whether they can refuse to treat them. I was of the impression that (like
>>someone on here said) a doctor doesn't have to treat someone if they don't
>>want to. However, although that is true in the new patient case (they can
>>refuse new patients of course), if a doctor is treating a patient and has
>>been on an ongoing basis there is apparently law that states that a
>>dismissal during treatment has to follow five very specific steps and if
>>there is any deviation from that, then the patient could sue because of
>>abandonment. I am transcribing a lecture on this very subject right now
>>from a lawyer turned dentist that I find interesting. Here's an excerpt of
>>what he has to say about it:
>>
>> The list of the doctor's implied duties, and this is a very partial list,
>> include things like maintaining a current license or being competent to
>> perform a procedure. And we don't write that in our fee schedule. We
>> don't say in exchange for this money I promise that I'm licensed and
>> competent or that my office staff knows what they're doing. When a
>> patient comes into our office they assume all of these things, but we're
>> going to do all of these things, including, lastly but most importantly
>> for the purposes of our discussion today, not abandoning me. You don't
>> write in there if you pay I won't abandon you, but it's understood and
>> the law compels you to continue to treat a patient and not abandon them
>> and if you are going to dismiss them that you follow very specific steps
>> that we're going to talk about now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dani
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Interesting
- From: DJGordon
- Re: Interesting
- From: Barbara Carlson
- Interesting
- Prev by Date: Re: Interesting
- Next by Date: Re: Arrgh something's wrong.
- Previous by thread: Re: Interesting
- Next by thread: Re: Interesting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
