Using malpractice lawsuits to lower cost
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 10-10-2009 - 1:59pm |
We've been down this road before .. there has been limits imposed on patients by government in regards to malpractice and the way doctors practice medicine has NOT changed - instead patients who have been victimized in the operating room have had to live with award settlements of $500,000 for the rest of their lives while their guts have been rotted from the inside out. How is a person of 40 years old (let's say) supposed to live on that .. knowing that they cant work anymore because of what the physician did to him or her?
Limiting malpractice lawsuits can save big
Fear of lawsuits makes some docs order costly tests that may be unneeded
WASHINGTON - Limits on medical malpractice lawsuits would lead doctors to order up fewer unneeded tests and save taxpayers billions more than previously thought, budget umpires for Congress said Friday in a reversal that puts the issue back in the middle of the health care debate.
The latest analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that government health care programs could save $41 billion over ten years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted. Those savings are nearly ten times greater than CBO estimated just last year.
"Recent research has provided additional evidence that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote lawmakers, explaining the agency's shift. Previously, CBO had ruled that any savings would be limited to lower malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, saying there wasn't clear evidence physicians would also change their approach to treatment.
Defensive medicine
On Friday, Elmendorf essentially acknowledged what doctors have been arguing for years: fear of being sued leads them to practice defensive medicine. Some doctors will order a $1,500 MRI for a patient with back pain instead of a simple, $250 X-ray, just to cover themselves against the unlikely chance they'll be accused later of having missed a cancerous tumor
Republicans immediately called for liability limits to be incorporated in the health care overhaul legislation advancing in Congress. The Senate Finance Committee bill now gives a nod of recognition to doctors' concerns, but little more. Heeding a call from President Barack Obama, the legislation calls for promoting state experiments with programs to resolve cases before they go to court.
"The more federal health care programs spend on unnecessary tests, the less money is available for necessary patient care," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. "Cutting medical liability costs would help preserve patients' access to care. "
Tens of billions of dollars in savings is "not chump change," added Grassley. "It's a no-brainer to include tort reform in any health care legislation."
However, Republicans were unable to pass malpractice limits when they controlled Congress and the White House, and it's unlikely that Democrats would do so now.
For one thing, trial lawyers have traditionally been heavy contributors to Democratic politicians.
But also, patient advocates argue that fixed limits on jury awards as in California and some states are unfair to those who have suffered the most harm because of a doctor's negligence. A patient who was given the wrong drug and had to spend several days in the hospital recovering from a bad reaction would likely be able to collect adequate compensation. But a family whose youngster was left brain damaged by an anesthesiologist's mistake probably would not be able to offset all the costs of lifelong care.
For rest of article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33246358/ns/health-health_care/

This is another tough situation that the US gotten into that other countries don't, as much yet. I took my son to an urgent care clinic where the doctor refused to even look at him w/out an x-ray. She said she needed proof that if there was an injury, we couldn't sue her and say she caused it. It was completely a CYA x-ray and the doctor came right out and said so. I refused treatment and saw his own doctor a couple of days later (weekend and the doctor was closed). I worked in an ER and know there were unnecessary tests run just to CYA but this was as blatant as I've seen. This doctor must do it as a matter of course--tons of unnecessary tests.
How do we protect those who are victims of blatant malpractice and doctors who do their best but can't be 100% w/out running unnecessary tests? C- sections are growing in number because of malpractice worries. Even being in the fitness industry, it's a concern for me and my colleagues. A person does something stupidly unsafe, gets injured and sues. Even if you're found not guilty of wrongdoing, it bankrupts you to defend yourself. Too many Americans see this as a jackpot, sadly, and it ruins it for all others who deservedly are wronged.
This is SOOO true!
This has been common practice for years. Many a medical journal article has been written about unnecessary testing, but when a doctor lives in fear of a malpractice suit, then what recourse does