聚焦过度医疗行为对公共健康利益的侵害及传统救济机制的局限性,以民事公益诉讼为制度切入点,分析我国过度医疗案件规制的现状,发现其存在行政监管惩戒有限、患方举证责任重、现有实践案例不足等困境。本研究从民事公益诉讼的制度优势、法理基础、规范依据等维度,系统证成民事公益诉讼介入过度医疗领域的正当性与必要性,进而提出兼具理论逻辑与实践可操作性的完善路径,这既需要在法理层面厘清行政监管与民事公益诉讼的衔接逻辑,也需要在制度层面构建更具操作性的规则体系。具体而言,包括过度医疗精细化界定、相关证据专业化收集以及兼顾公益性与私益性的赔偿金分配。通过上述路径,以期为同类过度医疗案件的处理提供理论参考与实践指引,助力检察公益诉讼在新兴医疗消费领域的完善与发展。
Abstract
Focusing on the infringement of public health interests caused by excessive medical treatment and the limitations of traditional relief mechanisms, this paper takes civil public interest litigation as the institutional entry point to analyze the current situation of regulation of excessive medical treatment cases in China. It is found that there are difficulties such as limited administrative supervision and punishment, heavy burden of proof for patients, and insufficient existing practical cases. The study systematically proves the legitimacy and necessity of civil public interest litigation in the field of excessive medical care from the dimensions of institutional advantages, legal basis, and normative basis, and proposes a comprehensive path that combines theoretical logic and practical operability. It is necessary to clarify the connection logic between administrative supervision and civil public interest litigation at the legal level, as well as to construct a more implementable rule system at the institutional level, including refined definition of excessive medical care, specialized collection of relevant evidence, and compensation distribution that balances public and private interests. This paper provides theoretical reference and practical guidance for the handling of similar cases of excessive medical care, and helps to improve and develop prosecutorial public interest litigation in emerging medical consumption fields.
关键词
过度医疗 /
民事公益诉讼 /
检察机关 /
社会公共利益 /
惩罚性赔偿
Key words
excessive medical treatment /
civil public interest litigation /
procuratorial authorities /
social public interest /
punitive damages
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 新华社.中共中央关于加强新时代检察机关法律监督工作的意见[EB/OL].(2021-06-15)[2025-10-01].https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/tt/202108/t20210802_525619.shtml.
[2] 梅帅,秦国文.全国首例过度医疗民事公益诉讼案件办理之参考[J].中国检察官,2025(06):52-56.
[3] 国家医疗保障局.关于开展2025年定点医药机构违法违规使用医保基金自查自纠工作的通知[EB/OL].(2025-01-11)[2025-09-20].https://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2025/1/11/art_53_15439.html.
[4] 刘璟锟,于晓军.过度医疗规制问题研究——以诊疗规范和法律规范为视角[J].医学与法学,2024,16(02):37-41.
[5] 胡煜. 民行交叉争议的困境化解及路径选择[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2023,37(04):146-153.
[6] 董春华. 实证研究视角下对医疗损害责任“以鉴代审”论断的质疑[J].中国司法鉴定, 2024(01):91-98.
[7] 姚强,张晓丹,焦月芳,等.我国过度医疗的主要表征、生成机制及治理策略分析[J].中国卫生政策研究,2025,18(07):61-69.
[8] 傅贤国. 消费民事公益诉讼案件跨区域集中专属管辖规则阐释[J].河北法学,2025,43(09):19-38.
[9] 周玉华. 检察公益诉讼立法重点争议问题研究[J].法学评论,2025,43(05):92-102.
[10] 汪静. 论我国消费民事公益诉讼制度的完善[J].江西社会科学,2024,44(11):100-108.
[11] 武亦文,王和民.“过度医疗”的私法规制[J].湖北社会科学,2024(08):135-143.
[12] 王煜昊,顾钰祺,徐伟.我国医保基金常态化监管的实现路径研究[J].卫生经济研究,2025,42(10):28-31+36.
[13] 万俊人. 现代正义论范式及其改进——以罗尔斯、森、纽斯鲍姆为例[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2025,62(03):47-64.
[14] 万泉. 防御性医疗的度量、形成机制与治理——评《防御性医疗的法经济学分析》[J].医学与社会,2023,36(09):148.
[15] 王利明. 消费者的概念及消费者权益保护法的调整范围[J].政治与法律,2002(02):2-11.
[16] 陈晓彤. 民事公益诉讼扩散性裁判效力研究[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2023,44(07):85-91.
[17] 顾培东. 新时代能动司法的倡导与回应型司法的构建[J].中国法学,2024(02):26-45.
[18] 新华社.中共中央国务院印发《“健康中国2023”规划纲要》[EB/OL].(2016-10-25)[2025-09-20].http://big5.www.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-10/25/content_5124174.htm.
[19] 张嘉军. 我国民事公益诉讼诉权行使顺位研究[J].中国法学,2025(04):266-285.
[20] 张雪樵. 《关于检察公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》的理解与适用[J].人民检察,2018(07):5-8.
[21] 王晓霞,刘艺.检察公益诉讼审前程序的立法建构[J].人民检察,2024(21):23-26.
[22] 王安富,黄敏,李连宏.论过度性医疗、保护性医疗与防御性医疗的法律界定[J].医学与哲学(A),2013,34(05):67-69.
[23] 张曼. 过度医疗案件裁判的法律困境与出路研究[J].西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2022, 52(06):50-61.
[24] 杨晓雪. 区块链技术在医疗纠纷司法取证中的应用与对策[C]//中国通信工业协会教育专委会,中国通信工业协会信息安全与云计算校企联盟,长江经济带产教融合发展联盟.中国通信工业协会教育专委会2024年会论文集.重庆电子科技职业大学,2024:52-55.
[25] 王福华,沈佳燕.民事公益诉讼判决的既判力[J].国家检察官学院学报,2025,33(04):51-65.
[26] 张嘉军. 消费民事公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿司法适用研究[J].河南财经政法大学学报,2022,37(06):121-131.
