Guardians of Grail

gtuo7kv8 · Posted: Wed 11:21, 14 Aug 2013 Post subject: Both approaches have weaknesses

Jim's particular subject matter expertise is healthcare,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and more specifically, disputes involving payors,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], providers,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], ACOs and integrated healthcare delivery systems. He also has extensive experience in complex business contract disputes. For assistance in resolving a dispute, call Jim Purcell at 401-258-1262 or go to
When seeking to resolve disputes without taking the 'nuclear option' of legal action,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], many organizations and groups seek one of two standard approaches to dispute resolution: Mediation, where both parties under the guidance of a trained mediator seek a good-faith negotiated solution,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], or arbitration, where both parties agree to bring their case to an agreed-upon neutral who renders a binding decision regarding the dispute.
Both approaches have weaknesses: Mediation is a collaborative effort and thus inspires mutual solutions, but can also end with no agreement and offers no way forward in that circumstance. Arbitration is much more definitive as it is designed to offer a binding solution at the end of the process,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but also represents a loss of control over the process and final solution. As a result of these concerns, a third option is rapidly gaining in popularity: Med-arb.
Med-Arb: The Best of Both Worlds
As the name suggests, Med-Arb is a hybrid of both approaches. In its outlines, it works like this: First,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], mediation is attempted,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], with a professional mediator guiding discussions. If a collaborative and mutually satisfactory solution can be found in the mediation process, the parties agree, the dispute is ended. If no solution can be found through mediation,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the process then immediately moves on to arbitration. If the mediator from the first phase is trained as a Med-Arb arbitrator, they can, with everyone's approval,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], step in immediately as arbitrator and render a decision. Otherwise, a separate arbitrator is brought in to hear both sides and render a decision.
It's clear that this approach blends the best of both worlds: The opportunity for a collaborative solution exists. However, impasse is avoided by the automatic trigger of arbitration if mediation fails to coax out an agreement. Both parties retain control of their destiny up until the moment they acknowledge that this control is not yielding a solution.
Something To Think About Before You Choosing Med-Arb
While Med-Arb represents a combination of the strengths of both approaches,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], there are some possible disadvantages. Although hiring a trained Med-Arb professional to act as both mediator and arbitrator can save money and streamline the process,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], it may also inhibit parties in the mediation process as they know their statements can possibly influence the arbitrator's decision if the process shifts their role. A solution to this concern is to have separate mediation and arbitration professionals involved, though this also increases the time and money the process involves.

相关的主题文章：

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]