Dr Sarah Christie - Academic Strategic Lead, The Law School, Robert Gordon University
Peter Orji - School of Business and Law, University of Brighton, United Kingdom
André den Exter - Associate professor in health law and Jean Monnet chair EU health law, Erasmus School of Health Poli
Nicola Glover-Thomas - Professor of Medical Law, Faculty of Humanities, School of Law, University of Manchester
J. Steven Svoboda - Executive Director, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Peter W. Adler - Adjunct Professor of International Law at University of Massachusetts in Lowell, Massachusetts, Robert S. Van Howe - Clinical Professor, Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University Colleg
Dutch Health Insurance Dispute Resolution and Fake Courts
The 2006 Dutch health insurance reforms introduced an alternative mechanism to settle disputes. This so-called “binding advice” is a binding third-party ruling to resolve disputes on the denial of coverage and the refusal to reimburse health services.
More than 12 years after it was introduced, the alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) regime gives reason for concern: legal criteria are interpreted differently by the ADR entity and the courts, thus causing inequalities in health care access under the Dutch Health Insurance Act. It is concluded that the privatisation of formal adjudication has largely frustrated citizens claiming access to medical technologies satisfying the ‘international medical science and practice’ test. It is therefore recommended that citizens opt out for the default option, challenging health insurance disputes in court.
Om toegang te krijgen tot het gehele artikel heeft u een abonnement nodig. Meer informatie over de abonnementsvormen en prijzen kunt u hier vinden.
Abonneren op dit tijdschrift