Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-02-08
HOLDS FEE-sPL|TT|NC
TO Be FORM OF CRAFT
Attorney-General Says NoIand Bill,
II Enacted, VIII 30 Sustained
by Courts.
AIMED AT MEDICAL sHAKPERs
Makes 1t Misdemeanor for Physician
to Accept Fee for Sending Patient
TO Any Hospital or to Split Fees
With Surgeon.


TO Any Hospital or to Split Fees
With Surgeon.
The Senate Committee Oh General
Laws met yesterday afternoon to dis
cusa the bill offered by Delegate r.
r. holland. which, if adopted. will make
II misdcmcanor for a physician to
accept fee for sending q patient to
any hopital, with the understanding in
advance that he is to receive Il part
or the payment Of tho patient, or to
get certain stipulated fec for his
suggestion to the patient that he go
10 any certain hospital for treatment
The bill has already passed the House
While there seems some interest in
the passage Of the bill. IA prominent
local physician stated last night that
II could not apply to Richmond ply
sicians and surgeons. lie was conf
dent that no such practice was in
dulgcd in here.
Attorney General Pollard. when
asked for an opinion as TO the con-
sututionnlity of the proposed bill, on
yesterday answered the request in the
form OF a written opinion which was
read at the conference. He character
i%"d such practice as graft and stat
cd IS his opinion that tho bill was
unconstitutional. Tho Attorney Cen
eral based his opinion upon Il ques-
ton OF public policy.
CITES ANTICIPATE
STATUTES As PnECEDENTs
Tho opinion follows:
TO the Honorable Committee on Cen
cral Laws. senate OF Virginia.
Richmond:
"Gcntlemcn,I received through
Hon. g. OConor Goolrick on Friday the
n
opinion as TO the constitutional!ty Of
House bill G., 10 prohibi, division Of
fces between physicians and surgeons
the Bill provides that no surgeon
shall directly or indircctly shar. any
fees charged for IA sur: ical operation
with Il physician who brings. sends
or recommends a patient to such SUR
Geon for such o"prat!on, and no ply
s!c!an who brings. sends or recon
ncnds any patient 10 a surgeon for 4
surgical operation shall accep, from
such surgeon amy portion Of IN. fee
charged FOR such operation
Il do not understand that til. Bill
presents any question as 70 IN. right
q: physicians to max. division OF
fees between themselves for services
performed in part by both. but the
question is whether the physician can
receive any part OF the surgeons fees
physician performs no service either TO
tho patient or TO tho surgeon except
tho mere bringing together OF the sur
rcon and patient; nor do understand
that tho bin raises any question as 10
the right Of the physician TO compensa-
'on for his time and expenses in ac-
ccmpanying tho patient 10 the surgeon.
nor does II Involve any question as tho
physicians receiving a fec for aiding
,f-.
patient preparatory to the operation or
subsequent thereto.
The only question involved seems to
hc whether the apparent infringement
on the liberty Of contract embodied in
the bill is justified BY sound public
policy. Is IL aimed at ana is IL reason
ably calculated TO prevent a practice
SO injurious 20 tho public health or
general welfare as to bring il within
The scope OF the police power of the
state As ] understand IL. friends OF
the bill claim that the practice OF di-
viding fees between physicians and
surgeons should To- prohibited for the
following reasons:
First, the practice tcmpts tho ply
stefan 20 consider his own interest
rather than that OF his patient by re-
commenting a surgeon, not on account
OF his skill. but because Of his willing
ness to make liberal division Of the
fees charged for tn" surgical opera
ton:
Second, IL also icmpts the physician
10 recommend surgical operations where
none are necessary: and
Third, that tho practice is form OF
graft, in that the physician bringing
tho patient 10 the surgeon does moth
ing TO earn any part OF the surgical
fec. and that tho portion Of the fec
given tho physician is usually added
-. La. 10 ,l,., Co.
the operation, hence the patient is
charged 4 fee in excess OF what the
operation is worth. said excess Sc
cretly going TO the physician. Such
practice finds its analogy in practices
prohibited by the antiGrNn statute.
cha ptcr $50 acts 1905 where it is pro-
vdcd that II any employee, authorized
TO procure materials. supplies. etc.
receives directly or indirectly for him
self or another. n commission, discount
or bonus from the person from whom
he purchases for his principal, he shall
be deemed guilty OF misdemcanor.
81 was not aware of the existence of
the practice AT which the bill il aimed,
nor can Judge from the information
before me the extent TO which public
policy may be involved. There is no
decision OF the Supreme Court of APP
peals OF Virginia. nor of any other
court. so far rs | know, which would
give any indication ms to whether the
courts would consider this particular
practice as against sound public policy.
can, therefore. only say that II it be
found that the practice Of dividing fees
between physicians and surgeons does
in fact endanger the public health or
general welfare of the people, / have
no doubt Of the power OF the State to
prohibit the practice in the manner set
forth in the bill.
Yours very truly
John GARLAND POLLARD.
"Attorney-General OF Virginia.