The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-02-08
ANTI-FEE-SPL|TIIK6
BILL CONSTITUTIONAL
Senate Committee on General Laws
FavOrably Reports Measure TO
Prevent Evil Practice.
MISUNDERSTANDING VIEW
His opinion Asked Fe,N Days Ago on
DIR. hollands Bill Deliyered-Repu-
table Physicians Endorse Measure.
Has Passed the House.

After receiving the opinion of At
torney-General John Garland Pollard
as to the constitutionality of the bill
introduced In the House by DR.. No
land, delegate from Loudoun. the Sem
ate Committee on General Laws yes
terday afternoon favorably reported
the bill by a vote of to g. The
measure prohibits the division of fees
by surgeons and physicians and is de-
signed to prevent the practice of fee
splitting, which reputable physicians
oppose, between surgeons performing
operations and physicians recommend
ing them. The bill has already passed
the House, in which not a single voice
was raised against IL.
When the bit was referred to the
General Laws Committee OF the SEN
ate Friday, the attorney general was
asked by Senator Goolrick, named q
committee of one to secure informa-
ton, to pass upon the constitutionaltty
of the measure When the commit
tee met yesterday afternoon the opin-
ion of the attorney-general was read.
Societies Oppose E'ee-Splitting.
The Medical Society Of Virginia has
gone on record as opposed to fee
splitting. The national association
also opposes the practice where it
exists and seeks to prevent its COM
ing into existence. Said the Critic
and Guide, of New York. foremost
medical journal:
The majority Of reputable physi-
clans and surgeons in this country
are strongly opposed to the division
OF fees"
Attorney General Pollard's opinion
reads as follows:
IT received through Hon. C. O'Conor
Gooirick on Friday the request OF
your committee for my opinion as
to the constitutionality of House bill
81 TO prohibit division OF fees between
physicians and surgeons. The hill
provides that no surgeon shall. d.
rectly or Indirectly. share any fee
charged for a surgical operation with
a physician who brings, sends or rec
ommends a patient to such surgeon
for such operation. and no physician
who brings, sends or recommends any
patient to a surgeon for surgical
operation shall accept from such sur
geon any portion of the fee charged
for such operation.
IT do not understand that the bill
presents any question as to the right
of physicians and surgeons to make
a division of fees between themselves
for services performed in part by both,
but the question is whether the ply
stefan can receive any part of the
surgeons fees as n bonus or gratuity
for which the physician performs no
service either to the patient or TO the
surgeon except the mere bringing to-
gether of the surgeon and patient.
nor do I understand that the bill
raises any question as TO the right
Of the physician to compensation for
his time and expenses In accompa ny
ing the patient to the surgeon. nor
does it involve any question as to the
physicians receiving a fee for aiding
in the operation or for treating the
patient preparatory to the operation
or subsequent thereto
Prevent Injurious Practice.
The only question involved seems
ment on the liberty OF contract en-
bodied In the bill L. Justified bH sound
public policy Is II aimed at and is
IL reasonably calculated to prevent 3
practice so injurious to the public
heath or general welfare as to bring
1t within the scope OF the police power
OF the State? AS understand it,
friends OF the hill claim that the prac-
tice OF dividing fees between physi-
clans and surgeons should be pro-
hibited for the following reasons:
First, the practice tempts the
physician TO consider his own interest
rather than that of his patient by
count Of his skill. but because of his
sion of the fees charged for the surgi-