"To make a coverage decision, doesn't one have to make a medical judgment?"
About this Quote
It lands like a lawyerly shrug that’s actually a trap. John Paul Stevens frames the question in the plainest possible terms, but the simplicity is the weapon: if “coverage” requires “medical judgment,” then the comforting fiction that insurers merely administer benefits collapses. Someone is practicing medicine by proxy, and it isn’t the person in the exam room.
The intent is to force responsibility into the open. In disputes over health insurance and managed care, corporate decision-makers often present themselves as neutral accountants applying policy language. Stevens’ question punctures that posture. A denial of coverage isn’t just a financial decision; it predicts what care is “necessary,” which is a clinical call with clinical consequences. By turning a contested conclusion into an obvious premise, he nudges the listener toward the next step: if you’re making medical judgments, why shouldn’t you face the duties, standards, and potential liability that accompany them?
The subtext is skepticism toward institutional abdication. Stevens’ jurisprudential style often favored practical realities over formal labels, and this line carries that sensibility. He’s saying: stop laundering power through vocabulary. “Coverage” is not a sterile category when it determines whether a patient gets a test, a drug, a surgery - or doesn’t.
Contextually, it reads as part of the late-20th-century legal reckoning with managed care, when utilization review and preauthorization turned medicine into a paperwork battlefield. Stevens isn’t grandstanding; he’s isolating the hinge point where a market system quietly starts making bedside decisions, then insisting the law notice.
The intent is to force responsibility into the open. In disputes over health insurance and managed care, corporate decision-makers often present themselves as neutral accountants applying policy language. Stevens’ question punctures that posture. A denial of coverage isn’t just a financial decision; it predicts what care is “necessary,” which is a clinical call with clinical consequences. By turning a contested conclusion into an obvious premise, he nudges the listener toward the next step: if you’re making medical judgments, why shouldn’t you face the duties, standards, and potential liability that accompany them?
The subtext is skepticism toward institutional abdication. Stevens’ jurisprudential style often favored practical realities over formal labels, and this line carries that sensibility. He’s saying: stop laundering power through vocabulary. “Coverage” is not a sterile category when it determines whether a patient gets a test, a drug, a surgery - or doesn’t.
Contextually, it reads as part of the late-20th-century legal reckoning with managed care, when utilization review and preauthorization turned medicine into a paperwork battlefield. Stevens isn’t grandstanding; he’s isolating the hinge point where a market system quietly starts making bedside decisions, then insisting the law notice.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
