Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas v. Harris: a dubious consequence of piecemeal health care legislation

For almost forty years, legislators have advocated comprehensive measures designed to assure Americans quality health care. Instead of implementing an integrated health care plan, Congress has intermittently enacted statutes which address specific health care delivery problems. At times the judiciary has stretched the ambit of existing health legislation in response to particular plaintiffs' urgent claims. This Case Comment examines the dilemma of piecemeal legislation and judicial policymaking as exemplified by Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas v. Harris, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals health care financing decision whose outcome Congress has flatly rejected.     

The legislative choice on the right of priority

The right of priority, or preemption, is the security interest of priority claim enjoyed by the creditor to the ordinary or particular properties of the debtor provided directly by law. It can be distinguished clearly from similar rights and can be stipulated in the Law on Property Rights. The right of priority falls into the category of security interests. Though it differs from the guaranteed security interest or lien, the right of priority, taking the property as its object, the guarantee of the performance of particular creditor’s right as its aims, possesses the basic characteristics of the security interests. Thus, such a rule shall be stipulated in the Law of Property Right. The right of priority is instituted directly by the law in consideration of the social legislative policies. Such considerations are necessary to the realization of social fairness and justice and the protection of public interests and social welfare. From the perspective of legislative polices and techniques, it is more reasonable to institute the right of priority in the Law of Property Right than resort to other replacing rules in order to secure particular creditor’s right. Instituting the right of priority in legislation will not increase the risk of deals; on the contrary, it will help the parties concerned foresee risks. Therefore, it helps safeguard the safety of the deals.