Directors' Duty of Care in Healthcare Facilities - Essay Sample

Introduction

The directors of a given healthcare facility are obligated concerning the duty of care to decision-making and oversight functions. In the former's case, responsibility involves the obligation of care principles to a particular decision or a specific board. The oversight functions that directors in a healthcare facility are mandated to oblige regarding the duty of care involve applying responsibility of care elements concerning the overall operation of the board in oversight daily business activities of the organizations (Vreugdenhil, 2017). For instance, the practice of reasonable care ensures the organization's directors carry out their management obligations and comply with the law. In that perspective, when one of the healthcare facilities was found renting imagining equipment from staff radiologists and the machine is situated in the radiologist's private, off-campus office indicates there is a breach of contract rules by the directors. Therefore, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is mandated to impose some penalties:

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

• The OIG can limit the amount of payment to the healthcare facility.
• The amount of average bonus that is given to healthcare facilities can be reduced.
• OIG cans suspend the obligation to return to Medicaid or Medicare overpayments.
• A penalty of at least $ 50,000 per violation
• The directors that may be found to have taken part in the fraud can be excluded from participating in healthcare programs.

Have the Directors Breached Any Legal Duty?

The healthcare directors have breached the duty of care concerning oversight function. It is the mandate of healthcare directors to obligate in good faith that organization data and reporting systems exist. Consequently, healthcare directors need to ensure that the reporting system is efficient to assure the stakeholders' appropriate data as to compliance with applicable law will come to their knowledge in stipulated time as a matter of typical operations (Callender et al., 2016). In that perspective, the healthcare facility directors may be held liable for breaching the duty of care. The reason is that the directors failed to adequately supervise the organizations' workers whose misconduct lead to the healthcare facility to violate the law (Corey & Zelig, 2020). Under the circumstances, the healthcare facility's directors were unable to oversee the renting of imagining equipment from staff radiologists fully. The machine was situated in the radiologist's private office.

Additionally, apart from the oversight obligation, the critical principle is that directors are mandated to rely in good faith on workers and professional advisors. The directors believe such confidence is desired (Kraschel & Curfman, 2019). Nonetheless, a director may be perceived as not acting in good faith if he/ she is aware of the renting of imagining equipment from a staff radiologist, and the machine was situated in the radiologist's private office. In that perspective, a director is mandated to exercise overall supervision concerning organization officers.

Should the Organization Self-Report?

In recent years, the U.S federal government has investigated and prosecuted healthcare providers and pharmaceutical organizations for anti-kickback, anti-fraud, and other laws. The national government efforts have led to significant financial penalties and fines. Henceforth, in the face of such risks, the healthcare facility must self-report to minimize the possible sanctions. One effective strategy for organizations to mitigate crippling sanctions is to investigate the healthcare industry's ongoing activities and willingly reveal wrongdoing before any investigations are initiated (Jeswald W, 2013). Such actions may help convince the office of the Inspector General (OIG) authorities to forego the fines or, in the very least, minimize the penalties that would eventually be sought and imposed. According to the Inspector General (OIG) Office, regulations give healthcare providers the chance to avoid the fines and penalties linked with government-directed investigation and administrative or civil litigation (Villiers, 2015). Additionally, OIG offers a presumption against required organization integrity contracts since good-faith self-disclosure is a depiction of a practical and robust compliance process. OIG normally obtrudes lower damages multipliers on organizations that self-disclose.

Conclusion

It is imperative that based on the confidential interviews and internal audits that were conducted by the Inspector General Office (OIG), the healthcare facility directors failed on their fiduciary duties to reflect the expectation of the organization stakeholders concerning the oversight of the healthcare affairs. Based on the evidence provided in the confidential interviews and internal audits, it is evident that some of the healthcare facility directors were aware of the renting of imagining equipment from staff radiologists that were stored in the radiologist's private office. In that perspective, the healthcare facility’s directors neglected the primary fiduciary obligation owed by the directors to their organizations is the duty of care. The healthcare directors failed in their decision-making and oversight functions. In that perspective, the healthcare facility is at risk of at least $ 50,000 if the healthcare facility's director knew that the machine was situated in the radiologist's private office. Consequently, the organization’s directors may be excluded for a minimum of five years for a conviction concerning concealing of healthcare items without notifying the corporate stakeholders and the Inspector General Office (OIG) before the agency conducted the investigation.

References

Callender, A., Hastings, D., Hemsley, M., Morris, L., & Peregrine, M. (2016). Corporate Responsibility and Health Care Quality: A Resource for Health Care Boards of Directors. American Health Lawyers Association, 1(3). Retrieved from https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/complianceguidance/040203corpresprsceguide.pdf.

Corey, D. M., & Zelig, M. (2020). The legal framework. Evaluations of Police Suitability and Fitness for Duty, 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190873158.003.0001

Jeswald W, S. (2013). Part II the national legal framework, 7 the challenges of legal change. The Three Laws of International Investment. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199654567.003.0007

Kraschel, K., & Curfman, G. (2019). Patient assistance programs and anti-kickback laws. JAMA, 322(5), 405. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.9791

Villiers, C. (2015). Corporate law, corporate power and corporate social responsibility. Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848443792.00008

Vreugdenhil, A. (2017). ‘Duty of care’ or ‘duty to care’. Critical Ethics of Care in Social Work, 38-48. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315399188-4