ShareThis Page
Judge orders HMO to accept psychiatrist back in the fold |

Judge orders HMO to accept psychiatrist back in the fold

| Friday, March 14, 2003 12:00 a.m

A health-maintenance organization has been ordered to reinstate an Oakland psychiatrist dropped from the health group’s provider rolls in 2001 after the doctor declined to hand over patient records.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James ruled this week that Green Spring Health Services and Magellan Behavioral Health improperly ended patient treatment agreements with Dr. Daniel Shrager after he raised ethical concerns about releasing medical records without patient consent.

James ordered Magellan and Green Spring, health providers under the Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield system, to reinstate Shrager as a full member and to allow him to accept new patients covered by the health groups. Highmark was also a defendant in the case.

Under the ruling, Shrager will be required to provide Magellan with redacted medical records from patients who approve their release.

Ray Middleman, attorney for Shrager, said his client went to court because he saw a threat to medical ethics. The decision, he said, shows the court agreed. “The court took an affirmative step to try to protect patients’ rights,” Middleman said.

But Kristin Brunnworth, a spokeswoman for Magellan, said while the ruling requires Shrager’s reinstatement, it also requires him to release records. “The judge is requiring him to do what we’ve asked of him all along,” Brunnworth said.

Records are released by Magellan’s doctors only after patient authorization, she said. She said her company ensures patient records are seen only by qualified people who need to see them to ensure adequate care.

“We need to make sure the patient is getting quality treatment and to do that we need to see those records,” Brunnworth said.

No ruling has been made on possible monetary damages in the case.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.