Volleys fly over patient rights

Fans and foes of medical arbitration squared off with separate news conferences Tuesday over what is becoming a growing concern among patients and physicians.

The issue first gained attention recently when Intermountain Health Care began sending letters to patients requiring they agree to binding arbitration rather than lawsuits to resolve disputes with IHC doctors or they'll have to find new doctors.

Tuesday, arbitration foes — led by attorneys Jim McConkie and Brad Parker, representatives of the Amalgamated Transit Union and the AFL-CIO, and a citizens group called Utah Citizens Alliance — accused IHC, the largest health-care system in Utah, of putting "itself first and injured patients and their families second," as McConkie put it.

They said the large-scale push for arbitration agreements forces IHC's doctors to do "what would be illegal for IHC's insurance division to do." State insurance law, they say, "prohibits compulsory arbitration schemes." And the arbitration agreements might be used to release IHC from lawsuits currently pending in court, they say.

The arbitration opponents have formed a nonprofit organization called Patients Against Mandatory Medical Arbitration, www.pamma.org and say they are considering actions to counter the mandatory arbitration agreements, including launching a petition drive to put the issue on the ballot or filing a lawsuit to challenge "the IHC forced-arbitration scheme." An hour later, in a press conference at the Utah Medical Association's offices a few blocks away, both IHC and non-IHC physicians touted arbitration as a "win-win" for patients and care providers alike because it's "fair and efficient." They said it's not an IHC issue but one that concerns medical practitioners across the state and the nation.

While arbitration isn't new — other industries, such as cable providers and credit card companies, have used it for years — this year doctors have Utah law behind them. The Legislature earlier this year said physicians can refuse to treat, except in emergencies, patients who will not agree to binding arbitration should they feel they are injured by the care they receive.

Under arbitration, the patient gets to pick one arbitrator, the health-care provider another and the two must agree on a neutral arbitrator. The two parties split the fees of the three arbitrators.

IHC is the first health-care system in the state to mandate arbitration agreements, though some doctors outside IHC's system have adopted the policy themselves.