Author Topic: Info for those who still believe  (Read 1445 times)

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2006, 04:41:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
Every single medical doctor that evaluates patients will likely make a mistake that results in one of his patients losing life or limb during that doctors career in practice.  If every single doctor were removed from practicing medicine because of errors in judgement there would be no doctors with any experience under their belt.  I wonder how Hillarys plan addresses this problem?......

However, gross negligence is different from bad judgement or unpredictable death.


Good point, well said.

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2006, 04:44:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Suing for malpractice is like playing the lottery.  Everyone wants a piece of that pie so they jump onboard.  Even if the doctor prevails they can look forward to much higher insurance rates.  Its all about the lawyers.


It is almost never about the lawyers. But keep drinking the rights koolaid.

It's The Insurance Industry, Stupid!
by TortDeform com
Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:56:21 AM EST

posted from Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog
By Laurie Gindin Beacham, Communications Director, Center for Justice & Democracy

In October, the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) fined Physicians Insurance, the leading medical malpractice insurance company, $450,000 for multiple violations of state insurance laws and regulations. The news was met by some with an exasperated,"again?" It's easy to see why.

In May 2004, the OIC fined Physicians $10,000 for 2003 violations of rate filing requirements under state law.  In March 2005, the OIC ordered Physicians to refund doctors more than $1.3 million plus interest for
excess medical malpractice premiums charged in 2003. The company was also fined $90,000 for non-compliance with insurance code regulations. Then, in July 2005, Physicians refunded yet another $900,000 in premiums due to
problems in their 2004 billing rates. The company also issued a rate reduction of 7.7 percent for 2005.


Commentary :: ::

October's $450,000 fine stemmed from an October 2004 market conduct examination into the company's practices that uncovered serious and widespread compliance problems. The examination was terminated so the
company could make corrections. Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, convinced the company has achieved that, has  "conditionally suspended" $400,000 of the current fine.
At first blush, this seems like the story of a wayward insurance company cheating its customers. And it is. But it's also the story of a problem that can be fixed when an insurance commissioner does his or her job, like
Kreidler did. Unfortunately, such strict oversight is the exception, and many state insurance departments don't have the authority for such aggressive regulation. Another exception is California, where passage in
1988 of Proposition 103 requiring stringent rate regulation finally got premiums under control. And in Illinois, after rate regulation legislation passed last year, the state's insurance division ordered a target rate
reduction of 3.5 percent for ISMIE, the state's largest medical malpractice insurer. That was followed by an announcement by another Illinois insurer in October that it would be lowering its rates by 30% and
expanding its coverage due to the recent insurance reform.

To understand the wider implications of these trends, they need to be seen in their larger context. For years, this country has been mired in a debate about medical malpractice insurance rates. Insurance companies, and
the politicians and business groups that look out for them, continuously blame malpractice lawsuits for premium problems. But as much as that might make intuitive sense, it's simply not true.

The reason rates spike has everything to do with the insurance industry's rate setting shenanigans. Rates are usually determined by the economic cycle and investment income. When investment income is up, insurers engage
in fierce competition to collect premium dollars to invest.  As a result, they lower their premiums - sometimes even under-pricing policies - to collect more cash for investing. When investment income is down, insurers
spike their premiums to make up for losses.

Last year, several national consumer organizations released a comprehensive study, written by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff, showing that from 2000-20005, net malpractice claims paid by 15
leading medical malpractice insurers across the country had remained flat, while net premiums for doctors had surged 120 percent. Another study by Jay Angoff of Physicians Insurance in Washington State revealed that over
a ten year period through early 2005, premiums had soared while paid claims had actually dropped. In fact, after previously blaming lawsuits, Washington State Insurance Commissioner Kreidler said last year that he'd
come "full circle" and realized the insurance industry's contribution to medical malpractice problems.

However, many states have ignored this evidence, passing laws limiting compensation to injured patients, known as "caps," in malpractice suits.  Fortunately, when confronted with such an option last year, Washington State voters wisely voted down a ballot initiative imposing caps. Cap amounts are usually ridiculously inadequate for catastrophically injured patients who have had their lives devastatingly altered by medical malpractice, adding insult to horrible injuries.  And of course, caps fail to reduce premiums because lawsuits are not the real problem. In fact,
when the Illinois insurer recently announced its premium reduction, state officials specifically pointed out that the caps were not the reason. A review of states reveals no consistent link between insurance premiums and
caps.

Nobody denies that doctors' insurance rates sometimes reach burdensome and unfair levels. But time after time, the data, and stories like Washington State, teach us the same lesson. The insurance industry - which continues
to rake in record profits - is the culprit, and the solution is controlling their erratic responses to market forces. Misdirecting punishment to severely injured patients, on the other hand, is not. It not
only doesn't work, but it is cruel, to boot.
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2006, 04:47:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
hmmm


lets look at the figures here

1.3% of 5000 cases resulting in over a million dollars awarded means


$65 million dollars awarded for every 5000 cases tried.

That's lowballing it as well because it says "over a million dollars" that means there could be 10 cases resulting in $10 million dollar verdicts.

That would put our figure closer to $155 million.  Again, I think I'm lowballing here.

lets not forget about those other 935 cases that resulted in awards.  Lets say 25% of them got $100K each

That's another $23 million and change

We are now up to $178 Million

Now lets say half of those 935 cases resulted in $10K awards.  That's another $4.65 million

$182 million and change.

Lets take this a step further.  Ohio makes up 3.8% of the US population in 2005.  If this where a good general cross section of the US by my non-scientific studies (kinda like this one)

$4,705,730,625.20  yes that's billion dollars are awarded ANUALLY in mal practice suits in the US.

Now this isn't taking into account:

1.  Lawyer fees
2.  Court Fees
3.  Cases that are settled out of court


If every single one of these court cases cost each person involved $3000 dollars in lawyer fees (again low balling it)

That's $12 million more just to defend the cases that are dismissed just in ohio alone and $310,267,953.31 (yes million) nation wide.  That's just if every court case cost the parties involved $3k a piece.  

This isn't taking into account the big cases like merc and what not.  Of course the article also fails to mention any possible relation to a major recent change in ohio malpractice laws But I guess you could just say that's semantics and ask us if we still beleive huh silat.  


all calculations where made possible by:  Windows XP standard calculator, and US Census facts



Well way to paint a devastingly RIGHTwing picture of the poor insurance industry..
The figures you pull out are peanuts compared to the BILLIONS of profits the insurance industry has been pulling in year after year. At the same time they are trying to blame the victims.
When will you reps stop shilling for the rich who only want it all.
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline myelo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2006, 05:05:32 PM »
If your point is that the insurance industry is a larded up, poorly regulated industry in need of serious reform, you're right. And believe me, doctors would rather not cough up thousands of dollars for professional liability insurance if they didn't have to. But they do because at some point in their career they will be sued, even if they do nothing wrong. And they will need that insurance to either pay to claim or pay for their defense.

But that doesn't change the fact that medical malpractice should not be a legal problem, it should be a medical problem. And the current legal system does absolutely nothing to improve medical care and does a lot to actually make it worse.
myelo
Bastard coated bastard, with a creamy bastard filling

Offline Neubob

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
      • My Movie Clip Website
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2006, 05:11:03 PM »
The truth of this matter is that if doctors weren't percieved as deep-pocketed defendants, niether this thread nor the general issue of medical malpractice tort abuse or reform would be an issue, otherwise, the legal specialty of claiming and defending police brutality would be as big or bigger. Of course, we all know that the police are sacred, where as the medical community is nothing more than corrupt, incompetant and bloated.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2006, 06:08:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea I mean c'mon how often do you have to go to a doctor.  Who needs them anyways.


What the heck does that have to do with what I said?  Sure we have a demand for doctors, and some people chose to fill that demand.  Hopefully they aren't stupid and understand that malpractice insurgence is part of doing business.  You know what, I bet you don't even disagree with what I'm saying but are arguing with me out of habit.  It's okay, I've been known to do the same.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2006, 06:15:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Silat
Well way to paint a devastingly RIGHTwing picture of the poor insurance industry..
The figures you pull out are peanuts compared to the BILLIONS of profits the insurance industry has been pulling in year after year. At the same time they are trying to blame the victims.
When will you reps stop shilling for the rich who only want it all.


Hmmm lets set this up eqaution style

In one hand there is the Insurance companys who make a legal profit in a free market system that rewards business for doin so.

Then you have

people that rightfully sued a medical practitioner for wrong doing


I fail to see your point?  The rich don't deserve equal protection under the law?  Some scum bag lawyer has the right to sue a company out of existance to make a buck?  

Though completely ignore my points and the fact that this study was done AFTER ohio malpractice laws changed and does nothing to prove your point.  Other than that have a nice day.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2006, 06:25:03 PM »
Quote
malpractice inurance is about half of the doctors expense in doing business.


Depends how you are defining doctors "expenses". Malpractice costs amount to about 2% of health spending in america.

Quote
How would that change under socialized medicine?


Well, that already includes socialised medicine, because it includes the US socialised system, which is one of the most expensive per capita in the world.

Quote
Are you saying that just as many malpractice lawsuits are filed by brits as by Americans?


Probably not, as in Britain there is a legal principle that the loser pays defence costs. You can get insurance to cover that if you want to sue, but it does deter the extremely frivolous.

Quote
How much british law is America willing to accept to make the socialized medicine work?


I don't know. How much British law has america already accepted to make your current socialised system work? It's much larger than ours, after all.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2006, 07:28:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
Depends how you are defining doctors "expenses". Malpractice costs amount to about 2% of health spending in america.


Health spending by WHO?  the Doctor with the practice or the insurance company?

Offline Neubob

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
      • My Movie Clip Website
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2006, 07:44:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
Depends how you are defining doctors "expenses". Malpractice costs amount to about 2% of health spending in america.



Well, that already includes socialised medicine, because it includes the US socialised system, which is one of the most expensive per capita in the world.



Probably not, as in Britain there is a legal principle that the loser pays defence costs. You can get insurance to cover that if you want to sue, but it does deter the extremely frivolous.



I don't know. How much British law has america already accepted to make your current socialised system work? It's much larger than ours, after all.


As much as I enjoy watching a valid topic degrade into yet another pissing match between citizens of like-minded nations, I do think it would be more productive to keep things on the topic of medical malpractice.

Again, this is not an issue of negligence or strict liability, or an issue of republican verses democrat. this is an issue of welathy plaintiffs--correction, plaintiffs that are commonly regarded as wealthy.

Those of you that get all loud and militant about how insufficient our definition of physician liability is are often either poorly educated, lacking in intelligence or the unfortuante combination of both. The problem in this nation, as Myelo said, is a litigation problem more than it is a medical problem. When a doctor begins to see himself as an unwitting lottery ticket, something is wrong.

Those of you that have lost as a result of doctor or hospital error, I am sorry. Your losses, nevertheless, should not make life even more difficult for those who have never been negligent, or their patients. Doctors pay enough for medmal insurance. The burden of the negligence of the few already translates onto us all. Do not make it worse.

If this is really what things have come to, I seriously suggest that certain people find something new to complain about. You could have it far, far worse.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 07:46:11 PM by Neubob »

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2006, 10:59:29 PM »
I see everyone up in arms over lawyers in medicine driving up costs. How about lawyers in other industries like oil. How much of that $2.85 a gallon goes to pay industry lawyers? I bet it's more than 2%. Why no outrage over that?
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline myelo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2006, 07:34:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
I see everyone up in arms over lawyers in medicine driving up costs. How about lawyers in other industries like oil. How much of that $2.85 a gallon goes to pay industry lawyers? I bet it's more than 2%. Why no outrage over that?


Because fuel costs are not rising nearly as fast as medical costs these days and last I checked, there wasn't a big problem with people getting out of the oil business because of liability concerns. On the other hand, some states are facing a health care crisis because doctors are choosing not to practice certain high risk specialties, such as ob, anesthesia and neurosurgery.
myelo
Bastard coated bastard, with a creamy bastard filling

Offline dmf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2920
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2006, 09:04:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Neubob
As much as I enjoy watching a valid topic degrade into yet another pissing match between citizens of like-minded nations, I do think it would be more productive to keep things on the topic of medical malpractice.

Again, this is not an issue of negligence or strict liability, or an issue of republican verses democrat. this is an issue of welathy plaintiffs--correction, plaintiffs that are commonly regarded as wealthy.

Those of you that get all loud and militant about how insufficient our definition of physician liability is are often either poorly educated, lacking in intelligence or the unfortuante combination of both. The problem in this nation, as Myelo said, is a litigation problem more than it is a medical problem. When a doctor begins to see himself as an unwitting lottery ticket, something is wrong.

Those of you that have lost as a result of doctor or hospital error, I am sorry. Your losses, nevertheless, should not make life even more difficult for those who have never been negligent, or their patients. Doctors pay enough for medmal insurance. The burden of the negligence of the few already translates onto us all. Do not make it worse.

If this is really what things have come to, I seriously suggest that certain people find something new to complain about. You could have it far, far worse.


LOL he's right ya know

Offline Scatcat

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2006, 09:23:26 AM »
My perspective as a physician:

Most medical malpractice suits that go to trial are found in favor of the physician (something like 80-90% time).

Most medical malpractice suits do not go to trial but are settled before hand (vast majority of suits filed).

Medical malpractice insurance companies do not consult the physician involved for permission to settle. The company is likely to settle for few thousand bucks instead of taking a case to trial. This is despite the fact that the suit may be without merit. The lawyer will collect the majority of the settlement with the plantiff (patient) getting less than half. The lawyers bank on the fact that the insurance companies would rather lose a few thousand vs. the significant cost for defending the case. This is free money for the lawyers bringing these suits. Nothing to lose in the current judicial system.

Most suits are brought by patients that are angry. Angry for many reasons. I have a patient, angry at the orthopedic surgeon because the surgeon didn't come out right after the knee scope procedure to talk to her. The surgeon sent out a knowledgeable nurse with instructions, while he was called away for an emergent operation. I personally had a patient angry with me for not getting right to her in an emergency room (she was there for her period) when I had a pelvic fracture in one room, and stroke in one room, and a hear attack in another all at the same time. She flat out told me she didn't care that others were seriously ill/injured she expected to be seen quickly so she could get on with her life.

People in this country have become all about themselves and when they don't get what they want they retaliate for the percieved misteatment they were given.

I certainly know medical malpractice happens. I believe families of malpractice victims should be compensated by some means. I believe the vast majority of doctors would agree. However, the current system is unfair and not dictated by traditional capitalist forces.

Medicine is the only industry I am aware of that is so regulated by the government as to prevent capatialism to flourish. Instead the government is so involved the cost of healthcare is driven up.

There are some folks in medicine doing well. However, consider your average family physician. Typically works 80 hours a week 24 hours a day at someone's beck and call. If he sees 22 patients a day in the office at lets say $45 dollars a visit 348 days a year, thats $344,520 dollars/year. Not too bad however, take out taxes then you got about $223,938. Take off the overhead of about 50% then you got $111,969, and don't forget the malpractice insurance of about $60,000 now you got $51,969 for an annual income. This is an oversimplification but not totally unrealistic.

How many of you know non-professionals with an income above $60,000 a year.

Physicians are also liable for damages that malpractice insurance doesn't cover.

I personally have not been sued after ten years in practice. However, I practice defensive medicine. In medical school and residency I was taught how to not over utilized uneeded test. However, reality as a practicing physician has taught me to order test that I know will be normal to satisfy the patient.  Making the patient "happy" trumps good medical judgment to prevent law suits. I have five kids and a spouse to support and I can't risk their futures by making patients angry. Unfortunately, my patients think I am a great doctor, not because I know how to treat diabetes or cardiovascular disease, but because I can get a Cardiac Calcium score for them despite the fact it may not change the treatment plan one bit.

Anyway, I would like to see at least one thing changed about medical malpractice litigation, that would be loser pays. I definately believe more suits would go to trial if the insurace companies thought they could defend a case and not loose money despite a vindication of the physician. I also think trial lawyers would think twice about a weak case if losing would mean paying for the othersides costs, ie no free lunch.

Offline Scatcat

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Info for those who still believe
« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2006, 09:35:23 AM »
I also forgot to mention,

There is a difference between medical malpractice/negligence and bad outcomes. However, patients/families somtimes confuse the differece. Thats why most law suites are in favor of the physician. Most cases involve bad outcomes that are not the physicians fault.

It is as much medicines fault for this confusion. Most people watch discovery channel or the national news and think medicine is so advanced that no one should have bad outcomes. There is a false perception that the medical establishment can perform miracles for everyone.

There is really only one thing I can guaruntee patients and that is we all will achieve room temperature someday.