Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[sls.stormyrider]

then maybe he had something to do with the way CBS edited the interview.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Ha.  He made his money on torts against Healthcare providers.  All of his mullah is from malpractice suits.

[sls.stormyrider]

Ha.  He made his money on torts against Healthcare providers.  All of his mullah is from malpractice suits.

yup
"ambulance chaser in chief"

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Ha.  He made his money on torts against Healthcare providers.  All of his mullah is from malpractice suits.

yup
"ambulance chaser in chief"

Heh.  Glad we have the cocaine snorter in chief instead.

[gah]

my guess is that nobody saw this, cause nobody watched the CBS evening news. anyway, they did a segment on the overuse of CT and MRI scans, how much it is costing the system, and the potential damage of excess radiation (from ct). I work with one of the guys interviewed (SB) - he told us that during the interview, he blamed fear of malpractice suits as part of the reason for overutilization of imaging and that malpractice reform is necessary. Guess how many times they mentioned the malpractice issue in the piece?

regardless, it's a decent spot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5337981n&tag=related;photovideo

(if you guessed a number greater than zero, you would be wrong)

I think the fear of malpractice is the main reason for a lot of unnecessary testing, not just imaging. Too many doctors, out of necessity, practice with the CYA (cover your ass) mentality. And it's not out of their own need to do so, but out of fear of malpractice suits, and the litigious society we live in.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

my guess is that nobody saw this, cause nobody watched the CBS evening news. anyway, they did a segment on the overuse of CT and MRI scans, how much it is costing the system, and the potential damage of excess radiation (from ct). I work with one of the guys interviewed (SB) - he told us that during the interview, he blamed fear of malpractice suits as part of the reason for overutilization of imaging and that malpractice reform is necessary. Guess how many times they mentioned the malpractice issue in the piece?

regardless, it's a decent spot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5337981n&tag=related;photovideo

(if you guessed a number greater than zero, you would be wrong)

I think the fear of malpractice is the main reason for a lot of unnecessary testing, not just imaging. Too many doctors, out of necessity, practice with the CYA (cover your ass) mentality. And it's not out of their own need to do so, but out of fear of malpractice suits, and the litigious society we live in.

The downside of limiting malpractice suit payouts, is that when and if a psychotic doctor does something truly fucked to one of his patients after the reform, then the recourse formerly afforded by the patient becomes unusable... leaving the patient high and dry and allowing the doctor to literally "get away with murder".

Perhaps the reform that is needed isn't by law or decree, but in a change of our own personal moral compasses.

[sls.stormyrider]

my guess is that nobody saw this, cause nobody watched the CBS evening news. anyway, they did a segment on the overuse of CT and MRI scans, how much it is costing the system, and the potential damage of excess radiation (from ct). I work with one of the guys interviewed (SB) - he told us that during the interview, he blamed fear of malpractice suits as part of the reason for overutilization of imaging and that malpractice reform is necessary. Guess how many times they mentioned the malpractice issue in the piece?

regardless, it's a decent spot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5337981n&tag=related;photovideo

(if you guessed a number greater than zero, you would be wrong)

I think the fear of malpractice is the main reason for a lot of unnecessary testing, not just imaging. Too many doctors, out of necessity, practice with the CYA (cover your ass) mentality. And it's not out of their own need to do so, but out of fear of malpractice suits, and the litigious society we live in.

The downside of limiting malpractice suit payouts, is that when and if a psychotic doctor does something truly fucked to one of his patients after the reform, then the recourse formerly afforded by the patient becomes unusable... leaving the patient high and dry and allowing the doctor to literally "get away with murder".

Perhaps the reform that is needed isn't by law or decree, but in a change of our own personal moral compasses.

Certainly the last sentence is true.
Personally, I disagree with a proposed cap on payouts, because there are some unfortunate, major f-ups. If someone is truly negligent, then a suit is fair game.

That is not what's driving the system, imo. There are a TON of "nuisance" law suits that never see the light of day. I read that over 90% of malpractice suits get thrown out or won by the doc (including settlements) - unfortunately I can't find the reference. Even when there is no payout, a lawsuit costs the system a ton of money in legal fees, not to mention the human cost.
Short of changing a large portion of the populaton's mentality, having sort of a pre-trial board to decide if something has any merit would go a long way, imo.

also, in Michigan, there has been a "trial" of doctors "apologizing" for errors, coming up with some sort of equitable settlement up front, cutting off the whole trial process from the start. it seems to be working.

[gah]

Perhaps the reform that is needed isn't by law or decree, but in a change of our own personal moral compasses.

Certainly the last sentence is true.
Personally, I disagree with a proposed cap on payouts, because there are some unfortunate, major f-ups. If someone is truly negligent, then a suit is fair game.

That is not what's driving the system, imo. There are a TON of "nuisance" law suits that never see the light of day. I read that over 90% of malpractice suits get thrown out or won by the doc (including settlements) - unfortunately I can't find the reference. Even when there is no payout, a lawsuit costs the system a ton of money in legal fees, not to mention the human cost.
Short of changing a large portion of the populaton's mentality, having sort of a pre-trial board to decide if something has any merit would go a long way, imo.

also, in Michigan, there has been a "trial" of doctors "apologizing" for errors, coming up with some sort of equitable settlement up front, cutting off the whole trial process from the start. it seems to be working.

Yeah, fauxpas is right on with his last sentence, but as discussed elsewhere, and again mentioned in the highlighted portion of sls's response, changing a large portion of society's mentality simply isn't going to happen. The idea of pre-trial boards sounds like a damn good one and not one I had heard before. That would save time, money, and keep the threat of multimillion dollar lawsuits out of doc's minds thereby allowing them to practice a little more freely.

[Superfreakie]

my guess is that nobody saw this, cause nobody watched the CBS evening news. anyway, they did a segment on the overuse of CT and MRI scans, how much it is costing the system, and the potential damage of excess radiation (from ct). I work with one of the guys interviewed (SB) - he told us that during the interview, he blamed fear of malpractice suits as part of the reason for overutilization of imaging and that malpractice reform is necessary. Guess how many times they mentioned the malpractice issue in the piece?

regardless, it's a decent spot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5337981n&tag=related;photovideo

(if you guessed a number greater than zero, you would be wrong)

I think the fear of malpractice is the main reason for a lot of unnecessary testing, not just imaging. Too many doctors, out of necessity, practice with the CYA (cover your ass) mentality. And it's not out of their own need to do so, but out of fear of malpractice suits, and the litigious society we live in.

The downside of limiting malpractice suit payouts, is that when and if a psychotic doctor does something truly fucked to one of his patients after the reform, then the recourse formerly afforded by the patient becomes unusable... leaving the patient high and dry and allowing the doctor to literally "get away with murder".

Perhaps the reform that is needed isn't by law or decree, but in a change of our own personal moral compasses.

Certainly the last sentence is true.
Personally, I disagree with a proposed cap on payouts, because there are some unfortunate, major f-ups. If someone is truly negligent, then a suit is fair game.

That is not what's driving the system, imo. There are a TON of "nuisance" law suits that never see the light of day. I read that over 90% of malpractice suits get thrown out or won by the doc (including settlements) - unfortunately I can't find the reference. Even when there is no payout, a lawsuit costs the system a ton of money in legal fees, not to mention the human cost.
Short of changing a large portion of the populaton's mentality, having sort of a pre-trial board to decide if something has any merit would go a long way, imo.

also, in Michigan, there has been a "trial" of doctors "apologizing" for errors, coming up with some sort of equitable settlement up front, cutting off the whole trial process from the start. it seems to be working.

"Most (73%) settled malpractice claims involve medical error. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that claims without evidence of error "are not uncommon, but most [72%] are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures [54%] go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant." Physicians examined the records of 1452 closed malpractice claims. Ninety-seven percent were associated with injury; of them, 73% got compensation. Three percent of the claims were not associated with injuries; of them, 16% got compensation. 63% were associated with errors; of them, 73% got compensation (average $521,560). Thirty-seven percent were not associated with errors; of them, 28% got compensation (average $313,205). Claims not associated with errors accounted for 13 to 16% percent of the total costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of administrative costs.

A 2006 follow-up to the 1999 Institute of Medicine study found that medication errors are among the most common medical mistakes, harming at least 1.5 million people every year. According to the study, 400,000 preventable drug-related injuries occur each year in hospitals, 800,000 in long-term care settings, and roughly 530,000 among Medicare recipients in outpatient clinics. The report stated that these are likely to be conservative estimates. In 2000 alone, the extra medical costs incurred by preventable drug related injuries approximated $887 million – and the study looked only at injuries sustained by Medicare recipients, a subset of clinic visitors. None of these figures take into account lost wages and productivity or other costs.

About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP for the insurers' group America's Health Insurance Plans...The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation's health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

[sls.stormyrider]

I need to find a reference for the article I was referring to.

from the NEJM article cited above:

Conclusions Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.

even claims that are denied cost the system $
10 years ago, expert witnesses got paid $450 per hour, I'm sure they were billed out for more.
Edit - the number quoted above is for defense. my guess is plaintiff was much more lucrative. some people make their living off of it.

Obviously, ths is a 2 sided issue. if there were no errors, there would be fewer complaints. Health care would be better (and less expensive).

There has been a huge push the past several years to reduce them, in a number of ways. Checks and double checks have been instituted, a lot of energy has been spent and more is needed.

Other things that have been worked on the past several years by the professional societies are overall improvements in quality (which may increase or decrease cost, depending on what is being done, but will improve health care) and also improve efficiency and decrease overutilization.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Punishing legitimate claims because of the abuses of illegitimate claims is not how the system should work.

A cap on payouts could cause this result.

Therefore, I'm anit-caps.

If someone can show me a better way to ferret out illegitimate claims, I'd like you to tell me please.

Again, this is another problem that would most likely be solved with the elimination of poverty (in my opinion, of course).

[guyforget]

Elimination of poverty does not eliminate greed. 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Elimination of poverty does not eliminate greed.

No, but greed would hopefully follow shortly thereafter.  As poverty is eliminated, societies tolerance for greed would also be diminished.  You would have a lot less sympathetic juries willing to award money from big corps to "innocent victims" when the evidence is almost blaring that whoever is being sued is not at fault.  You'd be surprised as to how many jurors sympathetic  to faux "victims" are just people who feel jilted by the system.

[guyforget]

A.) Im not buying that.

B.) A lot of sls's point is that once these matters make it into the system, its already money lost.  So whether or not juries award the money is only part of the problem, once a frivolous suit makes it to a jury its already cost too much. 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

A.) Im not buying that.

B.) A lot of sls's point is that once these matters make it into the system, its already money lost.  So whether or not juries award the money is only part of the problem, once a frivolous suit makes it to a jury its already cost too much.

There could be a law added that plaintiff's in malpractice suits who fail to substantiate their claims would be liable for the defendants legal fees.

I'd feel this addresses your B concern.

Agree to disagree on A...I don't have time to argue it with you.  I think you are underestimating the effect the existance of poverty in our current system causes throughout our entire society, as I'm sure you feel that I am overestimating the effect.