Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Xanikk999, Nov 3, 2006.
I'm not going to swallow that physcians will be fair to patients in physcian-patient adjudications.
Even if you believe these analyses, it just means that there are much bigger costs in US medicine than malpractice (such as the redundant bureaucracy that handles medical insurance claims). I also think the studies have a degree of fallacy in the question, not in the answer. The question often posed is "If malpractice awards were lower, would people sue less?" when it the answer is obviously "No" because patients don't sue out of some calculation of profit. They sue because they are angry and this is the only means they know to gain satisfaction. So if the award was $1, I would be there would be no difference. The notion that patients sue just to steal money from a doctor is ridiculous. The criminal miscreants who traffic physicians' offices are probably not even 1% of all the malpractice suits. One can argue that a real criminal would find it far easier to cheat in other ways for greater and faster profit, than to wait out the legal system for months to years until money might fall in his lap. In effect, these studies may be said to be accusing patients of criminal behavior.
How do you think science has advanced all these years?
Considering that the physician prevails in nearly all malpractice claims (something like 90%), it's hard to imagine a more unfair system for the patient than what already exists.
And I'm for eliminating the technical barriers that are causing valid cases to be lost. Letting the foxes guard the henhouse is not the solution.
Well, the first claim was unrelated to the article. Texas, which blocks malpractice to a high degree has much more "defensive medicine" than Minnesota, which is much more friendly to malpractice suits.
I'm curious how much "systematizing" medicine has to do with malpractice. I.e. the process of putting more work on the backs of nurses who basically fill in drop down lists on a computer or work through a flow chart, with one doctor supervising their activity and maybe checking in on the patient once a day for 1 or 2 minutes. I am seeing this a lot more around here. Maybe it's a regional thing.
By that logic, no judge can try other judges (or lawyers, since judges are usually lawyers). By that logic, we can't trust cops to arrest other cops. As long as there's no personal stake, there's no reason that people can't be trusted to act against their fellow professionals. How do you think they get expert witnesses in malpractice trials? In my jurisdiction, doctors may be called upon to serve in a hearing against other physicians for complaints to the state board. They just pick some random doctors. You get a letter in the mail like a jury summons. No one knows each other in advance so there's no incentive to do anything but what's expected.
They send me digests quarterly on all the actions they've taken, with names and places specified.
Think it can't be done? It's already being done!
How about a joint panel that is 50% doctors and 50% patients? The judge thing is a bit off because the fact finder in a trial is a lay jury, unless the parties consent to a bench trial.
What if we made it so that medical malpractice suits could not be raised until after the matter has been decided by the State Board, and the ruling of the Board would have to be entered into evidence, but the jury was not obliged to take the Board's recommendation?
A board run by doctors for the benefit of doctors that has a history of, and great incentive to continue, protecting doctors from the consequences of their mistakes?
I was not arguing the point. Science advances because every once in a while someone steps out of the box and finds an amazing discovery. I was trying to say that the "populace" tends to be gullible and if the majority of "experts" say it is so, then it is so. That is until the next consensus, and there are changes with new information.
Well, it would at least get the patients to focus more on petitioning those who can prevent bad doctors from continuing to practice, and they'd still be allowed to appeal to the courts if the board rues against them.
Especially if the doctors attitude is let insurance handle it. That seems to just make insurance go up instead of holding the doctors responsible.
What proportion of lawsuits are funded by contingency-based lawfirms?
As well, while defensive medicine is implied to have a high cost, it does have an indirect benefit of encouraging diagnostic innovations. Diagnostic innovations have the potential, at least, of leading to long-term benefits. As well, with electronic record keeping, over-testing should eventually lead to better meta-analysis capabilities.
Adversarial paperwork, though, is the devil.
Why was this thread necroed? It was almost 5 years old. isn't there some rule against that?
I think it is ok as long as the necro adds something. I would think this is a pretty benign thread to be necroed given the other available options.
The board has more incentive to protect the doctors than the patients though. So it generally is a useless route for the victims of malpractice.
Patients are everyone on the planet, even doctors.
That depends on the process. If that process is some secret inscrutable committee, that would most certainly be true. But if it is an open due process, like the courts, then it is open to challenge and public scrutiny, and therefore motivated to be less biased. Remember, the state medical boards are accountable to the state government, which is elected. That opens the possibility of public outrage at board actions that can carry reprisals at election time. You know that there's nothing that politicians hate more than to lose an election, least of all to something they could easily prevent.
Some states still have these secret cabals, but many, such as Maryland, have them open. Maryland will even publish quarterly newsletters detailing every action, with names NOT withheld.
That would not explain how people come to disbelieve in vaccines and evolution. All you need for a legend to grow is a good story that tugs at the heartstrings. It need not have any facts to support it.
So yes, it is true that people are gullible, but not in ways you expect.
Don't know, don't care. Neither do the patients suing, I bet. They are just fuming mad and simply want satisfaction. The money is probably an afterthought. Their minds, as Jolly Roger can tell you, are often poisoned by the attorneys (and their tv commercials).
That's another ghost I hadn't brought up -- the medical record. Do you know what stops me from writing a note in the chart that says that invisible aliens landed in the patient's room and cured him of his disease? Nothing.
18% for administrative costs doesn't sound that bad to me, but I am someone who is totally guessing about what stuff costs when you're trying to run a hospital or medical business or system or whatever..
Hey.. just did some research
So it seems like you were thinking of Canada with the 18% maybe then
edit: just noticed that this study was from 2003.. so.. it's possible that you guys have improved your efficiency since then, but somehow I doubt that
I may be misremembering the study. I was thinking that I remembered the number 18% for private health insurance administrative costs. And that was 3-5 times higher than Medicare. I may have to go looking for the sources again. I have them linked somewhere within my 500 odd bookmarks.
Then make the panels up from the general public. Some will be doctors, so they are not shut out of the process.
Separate names with a comma.