目的: 明确医保支付资格记分规则的适用边界,构建科学的责任认定体系。方法: 基于比例原则与制度目标协调视角,论证记分范围,提出记分触发阈值;从主观过错、原因力强度等维度构建四要件归责体系。结果: 记分范围泛化和责任认定不清是主要挑战,阈值设定可防止责任泛化,四要件体系可区分主要、重要及一般责任。结论: 精准追责有助于提升基金监管效能与制度公信力。
Abstract
Objective: The paper attempts to clarify the application range of the scoring rules for healthcare security payment eligibility and establish a scientific responsibility recognition system. Methods: Based on the principle of proportionality and the perspective of coordinating institutional goals, the paper demonstrates the scoring range and proposes a scoring trigger threshold, meanwhile, it constructs a four-element attribution system from the dimensions of subjective fault, causative potency, etc. Results: The main challenges are the generalization of scoring scope and unclear identification of responsibilities. Threshold setting can prevent the generalization of responsibilities, and the four-element system can distinguish between primary, important, and general responsibilities. Conclusion: Precise accountability can help improve the efficiency and institutional credibility of medical insurance fund supervision.
关键词
医疗保障 /
行政处罚 /
医保支付资格 /
责任层级 /
归责要件
Key words
healthcare security /
administrative penalty /
healthcare security payment eligibility /
hierarchy of liability /
elements of liability imputation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 国家医保局,国家卫生健康委,国家药监局.关于建立定点医药机构相关人员医保支付资格管理制度的指导意见[EB/OL].(2024-09-27)[2025-06-30].http://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2024/9/27/art_104_13996.html.
[2] 杨红燕,周致远,刘肖,等.我国医保医师支付资格记分管理的改革逻辑、挑战及对策[J].医学与社会,2025,38(06):94-99.
[3] 国家医疗保障局. 2023年全国医疗保障事业发展统计公报[EB/OL].(2024-07-25)[2025-06-30].https://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2024/7/25/art_7_13340.html.
[4] 刘权. 论必要性原则的客观化[J].中国法学,2016(05):178-195.
[5] 梅扬. 比例原则的适用范围与限度[J].法学研究,2020,42(02):57-70.
[6] 张晓波. 过失应受行政处罚行为的认定研究[D].南宁:广西大学,2024.
[7] 肖俏. 行政决策追责中领导人行政责任认定研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2018.
[8] 陈兴良. 从归因到归责:客观归责理论研究[J].法学研究,2006(02):70-86.
[9] 劳东燕. 事实因果与刑法中的结果归责[J].中国法学,2015(02):131-159.
[10] 陈璇. 注意义务的规范本质与判断标准[J].法学研究,2019,41(01):136-154.