An Arkansas State Court has just granted a permanent injunction against Baptist Health, Arkansas' largest hospital system, prohibiting an economic credentialing policy. The case as legal precedent may have serious implications regarding the limits of hospitals restricting admitting physicians' privileges due to financial interests in competing ventures--if the restrictions are considered interference with a patient's choice of physician. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the Arkansas Medical Society (AMS) were both intervenor parties in the original lawsuit of Murphy v. Baptist. The AMA stated in a press release that it and the AMS "successfully challenged the unfair hospital policy by arguing that the primary factor in credentialing physicians should be competency, not economic factors unrelated to quality."

The original plaintiffs in this case were several cardiologists affected by Baptist Health's policy. In 2003, the Baptist Board of Trustees adopted what was eventually termed the Economic Credentialing Policy (ECP). Under this policy, any physician who directly or indirectly acquired or held an ownership an ownership or financial interest in a hospital anywhere in Arkansas would be ineligible for either initial or renewed professional staff appointments or clinics privileges at any Baptist Hospital. The policy applied to owners, investors and their family members, with a broad definition of who was considered "family." According to the final order signed by Hon. Collins Kilgore, all the plaintiffs sought a declaration that Baptist Health's ECP tortuously interfered with the plaintiffs' relationships with their patients and business expectancies accompanying those relationships, and that the ECP was contrary to public policy as well as an unconscionable business and trade practice. The plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction against Baptist Health enforcing the ECP.

One of the major points made in the case was that cardiologists have long-term relationships with their patients, because the patients usually require continuity of chronic care for years or even decades. The court's opinion stated that the physicians had demonstrated at trial Baptist's tortuous interference of business relations, specifically the physician-patient relationship between the cardiologists and their patients. Tortious interference occurs when a party knowingly induces or causes a breach or termination of a business relationship or expectancy of a relationship. In this case, the physicians' care of their patients can be considered such a relationship. The court's opinion noted that the President and CEO of Baptist Health and two board members all testified that they were aware the ECP would disrupt patients' relationships with the physician of their choice. The court also determined that there had been actual injury in the form of the disrupted relationships and referral sources.

More Industry Headlines