Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on November 16, 2006, 05:04:33 PM
-
the republican mantra that we need to limit the peoples right to sue..
Report: Most malpractice cases end with no payments to patient
http://www.wkyc.com/news/health/health_article.aspx?storyid=59351
Created: 11/15/2006 5:40:41 PM
Updated:11/15/2006 5:45:06 PM
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- For the first time, Ohio has compiled a report on the outcome of medical malpractice claims.
The information collected by the Ohio Department of Insurance provides a benchmark for future trends on a hot-button issue between doctors and the lawyers who sue them.
The report issued yesterday shows there were more than 5,000 medical malpractice cases closed in Ohio in 2005. Sixty-five -- 1.3% -- resulted in payments of more than $1 million.
Four thousand cases -- 80% -- resulted in no payments to those claiming bad care.
The compilation covers malpractice lawsuits against doctors, dentists, optometrists and chiropractors.
© 2006
The Associated Press
-
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.
-
Unless you settle, the cost for defending is not much different between winning and losing. And the insurance company still pays for part of it since they at least help provide the lawyer in most cases.
What that compilation DOES NOT show is how many of the 4000 cases that did not result in a pay out by the doctor or insurance company were either lost or dismissed because they had zero merit.
-
Yet every one of those cases resulted in financial hardship to the doctor, medical staff, or hospital due to legal fees and increased malpractice insurance, not to mention additional stress on the accused. As if a surgeon who already works 12-14 hour shifts NEEDS more on his or her mind...
Indirect costs of course are passed right on to everyone else, as unnecessary studies are ordered, the most conservative and expensive medication schedules are prescribed, and patients are "encouraged" to leave the hospital as early as possible so if anything happens, it doesn't happen where the hospital can be blamed. Covering your butt is just as important to hospitals as patient care nowadays.
I'd almost like to see health care go completely back to cash-for-services, with a hard-nosed waiver signed before entering the front door. There is no right to perfect health and no right to expect perfection in a practice that by definition deals with things that are already going wrong. Criminal negligence needs to be dealt with and compensated for, but the stats are proof enough that most malpractice cases are just people pissed off that they're sick.
Maybe instead of going to court they need to go to church and ask God why they have cancer.
True malpractice horror story - Lady asks friend radiologist to do a mammogram as a favor. Radiologist helps lady get mammogram quickly, but finds suspicious lumps. Radiologist recommends immediate follow-up with skilled general practicioner. Lady thanks radiologist. 1 year later, radiologist sees lady at a party, asks about results of follow-up. Lady says she hasn't gotten around to it. Radiologist is horrified, again recommends immediate follow-up. Lady again fails to go to doctor. 1 year later, lady goes in to see doctor for something, doc feels lumps and does biopsy. Lumps are cancer, too far progressed to be easy. 2x mastectomy and chemo later, lady is alive, has no breasts, and is out for revenge. She sues original radiologist friend for failing to catch cancer, and wins large award from sympathetic jury who feels sorry for lady with no breasts even though she blew off follow-up for 2 full years.
That's the truth about the majority of malpractice lawsuits. The patient is mad about life not going perfectly well, and sues everyone who tried to help them. Even if hospital saved their life, they still sue because they're still angry at the universe. People used to go to church to deal with this, but now it's possible to wring a cash settlement out of sympathetic juries who agree that life sucks and *someone ought to PAY for this!!!!* even if there is no fault or if it was the patients fault. Because you see, we make every excuse we can think of to excuse poor behavior from people who are in poor circumstances either through bad luck or bad choices.
And everyone's health care costs go up, doctors are avoiding critically needed specialties due to high risk of lawsuits, and quality of care drops.
-
Doctors should go on strike until the law is changed.
What quicker way to make the socialists realize how much they need the doctors then there being none of them there to work.
-
Does it cover those that settle?
Does it cover the litigation fees the defendent paid?
Does it cover the other 49 other states?
Geesh silat, if I took a study of ONLY san fransisco would that be a reresentaion of the nation or democratic values as a whole?
This just in, Democrates HATE JROTC in high schools.
Is that a fair and accurate statement?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
This just in, Democrates HATE JROTC in high schools.
Is that a fair and accurate statement?
I don't know, but it's certainly off topic. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know, but it's certainly off topic. ;)
Not if you are taking a small portion of the population and applying it as a general rule.:aok
-
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 (http://www.mcandl.com/ohio.html) 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 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html)
-
Now that is funny silat...
Talk about your newspeak.... 80% of cases don't end in a settlement... soooo... that means that malpractice insurance is not a big problem in medical costs?
If more than half of the expense of being a doctor is medical insurance costs and... if there are more lawyers in the country than doctors and.. if every commercial on late night or daytime tv is about suing a doctor...
Who the hell do you think is paying to defend these doctors against all these baseless lawsuits? How many multimillion dollar lawsuits do you think it takes to drive malpractice insurance into the realm of being half of medical care costs?
Sheesh... by your logic.. we could cut medical costs in half by simply telling doctors to not buy malpractice insurance... I mean... what are the chances they will get sued right?
What is funny is that if you get your socialist medicine... you will have to severly limit the amount and kinds of malpractice suits like in other socialist countries.
socialized medicine will not only give you terrible service but make it so you can't sue if anything goes wrong.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
socialized medicine will not only give you terrible service but make it so you can't sue if anything goes wrong.
lazs
The socialist elite know this but those looking for socialism to give them a bigger and unearned piece of the pie can't see that far ahead.
-
So, in other words, suck it up, you can live without the limb.
-
Originally posted by Silat
the republican mantra that we need to limit the peoples right to sue..
Report: Most malpractice cases end with no payments to patient
http://www.wkyc.com/news/health/health_article.aspx?storyid=59351
Created: 11/15/2006 5:40:41 PM
Updated:11/15/2006 5:45:06 PM
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- For the first time, Ohio has compiled a report on the outcome of medical malpractice claims.
The information collected by the Ohio Department of Insurance provides a benchmark for future trends on a hot-button issue between doctors and the lawyers who sue them.
The report issued yesterday shows there were more than 5,000 medical malpractice cases closed in Ohio in 2005. Sixty-five -- 1.3% -- resulted in payments of more than $1 million.
Four thousand cases -- 80% -- resulted in no payments to those claiming bad care.
The compilation covers malpractice lawsuits against doctors, dentists, optometrists and chiropractors.
© 2006
The Associated Press
You know, Silat, I've always had a lot of respect for you, but this has got to be one of the most thoughtless posts I've seen on this forum yet. Of all the reasons to not like republicans, their approach to medical malpratice tort should not even be on the radar.
Most cases of medical malpractice are bogus. In the absence of any negligence, a patient has a statistical chance of getting an infection. A patient goes into surgery, everything goes fine, but his wound gets infected. He sues. A doctor tells a patient that he will experience numbness in his right arm for a week post surgery, it goes on for two weeks, he sues. A pateient is told that he will not be able to lift heavy object at work after a spinal fusion, his employer demotes him, he sues. A patient agrees to an rare treatment, and, as a result, is laid up for 2 months, losing wages but suffering absoltuely no lasting harm. Sues and settles for $9million (a recent case in delaware ended like this).
The cases of sponges and scalpals being left in the wound, or the wrong leg being amputated, those are few and far between. What is common is patient greed, stupidity, and their lawyers' infinite propensity for filing baseless claims.
As a result, the doctors, your apparent enemies, have had to pay ever-increasing medmal insurance premiums, have had to close practices, raise rates, or, at the very least, exercsie the costly and largely useless practice of 'defensive medicine'. You can bring up all the personal examples you want. I come from a family of doctors and I've heard them all. If you have legitimate negligence on the part of the doctor or hospital, you deserve compensation. The vast majority of cases do not. Period.
But don't let any of that change your reasoning. Of all the idiocy the republicans can be accused of, you picked the most valid one. Doctors don't lose enough lawsuits.
Shame on you.
-
If more than half of the expense of being a doctor is medical insurance costs and... if there are more lawyers in the country than doctors and.. if every commercial on late night or daytime tv is about suing a doctor...
Who the hell do you think is paying to defend these doctors against all these baseless lawsuits? How many multimillion dollar lawsuits do you think it takes to drive malpractice insurance into the realm of being half of medical care costs?
Sheesh... by your logic.. we could cut medical costs in half by simply telling doctors to not buy malpractice insurance... I mean... what are the chances they will get sued right?
Well, the facts are that malpractice costs amount to less than 2% of US healthcare spending according to the CBO.
What is funny is that if you get your socialist medicine... you will have to severly limit the amount and kinds of malpractice suits like in other socialist countries.
socialized medicine will not only give you terrible service but make it so you can't sue if anything goes wrong.
Where do they do that? Britain, which has a national healthcare system (cheaper than the US national healthcare system, but covers everyone), allows unlimited payouts for medical negligence. They paid something over £500 million in compensation in the 2004-05 financial year.
-
Four thousand cases -- 80% -- resulted in no payments to those claiming bad care.
Lew, are you saying the Republicans are wrong Because these patients didn't get paid for a claim of bad care? They wen't through the legal system and Lost, which suggests they had no basis for the claim to begin with.
Of course they have the right to sue, but don't you think the legal system and the hospitals would be better served if the JUNK wasn't cluttering up the system?
This is an indication of Bad Republican Policy? How? Just because someone Claims bad care does not make it so. In a utopian society one wouldn't expect someone to lie or mislead, but in the real world of morons dropping hot coffee on their laps and winning lawsuits, people Do lie and manipulate. Common sense is not something that comes easily to alot of people, at some point we need to step back and just tell them to knock off the stupid stuff.
In a "perfect" society where we all had the right to do anything, I could sue you simply because trying to figure out what you meant in this post gave me a headache, thus causing mental anguish, and forced me to miss an hour of work trying to clear my head. By my Claim I should win easily because I made the claim, shouldn't I? Wouldn't that be the Fair thing to do?
I'm really stuck on how tying this to the evil Republicans mantra about limiting lawsuits. The evil republicans are trying to prevent the Stupid lawsuits I just described, and Right Now have the Right to pursue.
:D
-
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.
-
A doc too lazy to order a test would be a good case for malpractice. Of course you know that. Of course you also are intelligent enough to recognise an obviously frivolous lawsuit compared to negligence which resulted in the loss of someone's 4 limbs. Maybe you're just taking jabs because you don't like the names on the other side of the argument.
Edit: tasteless jabs.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.
And you think Rip getting a few million dollars is going to mean diddly to him at that point? Plus the doctor will still be in practice.
The goal of the medical malpractice system should be to identify and remove or retrain bad doctors and fix any system problems that harm patients. The current system does not do this. It's fairly good at compensating victims of malpractice (at considerable cost) but it's lousy at actually preventing malpractice.
When I'm president, we'll have a system where a panel of doctors review each case to determine if an error that resulted in injury took place and if so, what restrictions or retraining should take place for the clinician in question and if any system errors need to be addressed. If malpractice took place, the victim would be compensated from a general fund that all doctors and hospitals pay into instead of their insurance premiums. Compensation would be based on a standard scale for pain and suffering and actual economic damages.
This avoids having lawyers, judges and juries making medical judgements that they are not qualified to make. It substantially lowers the cost by taking out the lawyers (who eat up about 50% of the costs) and insurance companies, leaving more money to go to the victims. Finally, it focuses on fixing the system and removing the truly bad doctors.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Maybe you're just taking jabs because you don't like the names on the other side of the argument.
Edit: tasteless jabs.
I'm not taking jabs, I'm presenting the other side of the debate. Don't consider it tasteless, it's a real world scenario. Maybe you're just offended someone doesn't follow your way of thinking.
-
Playing for the ICU team = real world scenario. Gotcha.
Anyway, I acknowledged the other side of the debate (and your hypothetical scenario) in the first part of my post. You must have skimmed over it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.
Does a doctor's screw up sending my Dad down the road to a pretty sad death count? Money wouldn't bring him back. It won't help a damned thing. Now, I've BEEN THERE, and money wouldn't make things any better. Could I use a big settlement? Sure, so could my Mom. But that's not what it's supposed to be about. But I don't expect you to understand that.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Does a doctor's screw up sending my Dad down the road to a pretty sad death count? Money wouldn't bring him back. It won't help a damned thing. Now, I've BEEN THERE, and money wouldn't make things any better. Could I use a big settlement? Sure, so could my Mom. But that's not what it's supposed to be about. But I don't expect you to understand that.
Actually Virgil, I understand it completely. What some here don't understand is each case is different and each is equally complicated. To just make a blanket statemant about malpractice is ludacris. Looks like the courts are smart enough to weed out frivolous lawsuits from legit cases.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Actually Virgil, I understand it completely. What some here don't understand is each case is different and each is equally complicated. To just make a blanket statemant about malpractice is ludacris. Looks like the courts are smart enough to weed out frivolous lawsuits from legit cases.
Well, the problem is, there's practically zero punishment for bringing frivolous lawsuits, or repeated lawsuits without a real basis for a claim. It's all fine and dandy that courts can "weed them out". The problem with that is that it still costs plenty of time, money, and resources. And we all pay the bill. There's got to be some reform for that, it simply cannot go on. It costs way too much and it wastes the resources of an already over taxed system.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.
A doctor kills your child and you, in return, punish all doctors for it, guilty or innocent. Have you considered that the proportion of bogus claims to legitimate claims is bigger than the proportion of trials that settle or end in plaintiff's victory is to those that are being thrown out?
-
nashwan... malpractice inurance is about half of the doctors expense in doing business.
How would that change under socialized medicine?
Are you saying that just as many malpractice lawsuits are filed by brits as by Americans? That the payouts are the same? That the legal costs are the same?
How much british law is America willing to accept to make the socialized medicine work?
lazs
-
Think about the lawyer fees associated with 4000 cases as stated in the article posted.
Again Ohio represents 3.9% of the US population
Simple math here means 103422 cases are brought before the courts every year for this and get dismissed for whatever reason.
Most lawyers work probono for the one bringing the suit but the insurance companys and doctors have alot more to lose so they HAVE to pay their lawyers fees no matter what.
if each one of these cases cost between $4-10K each to defend then that means they are paying $413,690,604 - $1,034,226,511 (yes again that's a billion dollars annually) to defend lawsuits that get dismissed.
Again that's getting off cheap for a lawyer so that's a lowballed figure. And that is JUST THE LAWYER FEES ALONE.
Yes the system works just fine, leave it alone and eventually the healthcare industry will be sued out of existance.
-
Of course, no one is forcing these guys to become doctors.
I, for one think that docs shouldn't have to have insurance. But their clients would be wise to find out before hand. Same thing with waivers.
Great docs could have the waivers because people would be beating down the door to get to them. Mediocre docs would have insurance, just in case. And crap doctors wouldn't have either.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Of course, no one is forcing these guys to become doctors.
yea I mean c'mon how often do you have to go to a doctor. Who needs them anyways.
But what about the lawyers, we sue the doctors out of existance who will they have to sue? Eventually they will run out of cash cows to leech money from and then how will they pay for the beemers and lexus. Pretty soon country clubs will have to lay off grounds keepers because the lawyers can't pay their dues anymore and the doctors got sued out of existance. Geesh OH THE HUMANITY!
-
So was this a Silat drive-by? Where'd he go?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.mcandl.com/ohio.html) 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 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
socialzed medicine? sure, we have medicare and freebie healthcare for those who can't pay and wont get insurance. but... for those who buy insurance... we are much happier with what we have. People from countries with socialized medicine come here for operations.
I heard (on npr of all things) a discussion with doctors and health care providers that seemed very reasonable.
They are saying that the best solution, and I agree, is insurance like most of us have on our cars.... deductible with say... $4000-10000 a year deductible... the rates would then be from say a low of $60 a month to a high of say a hundred or sop a month.
you break a leg and it costs $800.... you pay. Open heart surgery? you pay 10 grand the insurance pays the rest. Another big expense for the doictors was all the paperwork for the medicare and entitlement cases... with a deductible not only would people go less to the doc but the paperwork would be allmost eliminated....making it even cheaper for doctors fees.
People who have to pay a certain amount for doctors visits now go to the doctors a lot less and are less of a burden... this would simply be an extension.
So what if you had a bad year and had to pay $4000 that year in doctors bills? why is that a trajedy that we all have to do something about when if you wreck your car or the trans blows up or it gets stolen and you lose 4 or 5 grand we don't hear a thing.. you suck it up. People are paying $400 a month for car insurance that isn't worth anything but you don't hear cries to socialize automobile driving.
Many have $1000 deductible on property damage... where is the outcry when the wind blows down their fence or takes out their rain gutters?
So why should eveyone have to go to a one size fits all insurance policy of socialized medicine when it is only a few that can't or won't do something about their life?
lazs
-
You guys should have a disclaimer :) Something that says this
In the event that we save your life, you may not sue us for saving it. If we cannot fix your medical problem it it may be because you waited too long before coming to see us, but since we did extend you life a few years, we are not liable for the fact that your right middle finger no longer pops up when you want it to, but at least yous still alive, be happy or we'll reverse what we did and laugh while you die.
Get real with the law suits people, if its a pair of pliers left inside you after surgery, then Yea you have a case. but if the cold doesn't go away in 5 minutes its not the doctors fault.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They are saying that the best solution, and I agree, is insurance like most of us have on our cars.... deductible with say... $4000-10000 a year deductible... the rates would then be from say a low of $60 a month to a high of say a hundred or sop a month.
lazs
LOL, I can tell you have not been paying for your own in a while :rofl
10k deductible here pushing $300.00 a month. And we have had all the cool tort reform in place that the insurance industry pushed thru in the 90's including the only complete immunity law for the drug industry in the nation.
I gotta say, the insurance industry has masterful PR people, they over charge for a product in a so called government regulated environment and have successfully convinced a huge percentage of the people that it is someone else's fault.
I worked insurance defense for many years until I just couldn't stomach it any longer, the crap that the adjustor's and defense counsel want the field investigators to do just to get out of paying valid claims so they can maintain good "loss ratios" is sickening.
shamus
-
I pay for my own and it is about $500 a month with no deductible except for $5 co pay for dr visits or perscriptions... catastrophic insurance is offered by Kaiser here and it is like $60 a month.
Are you saying that a $10k deductible there is allmost $300 a month per person? For a family of three it would be $900 with a $30k a year deductible?
I have not seen that but even if it were high at this point... the more people involved the lower the rates would be... few insurace companies are offering real viable deductible plans.
lazs
-
The plan covers a husband and wife so it breaks down to about $150.00 per. You are correct about the deductibles tho.
The $1500.00 deductible was $850.00 per month (couple), so the high deductible is a lot lower, as it should be.
We don't have Kaiser here so I am not familiar with them.
shamus
-
shamus... most people pay that much or more for car insurance and.... with a deductible of up to $5k. and that isn't even per year.. it is per incident.
So why aren't the democrats and socialists crying to socialize car insurance... look at all the people driving around uninsured?
Point is.. if every insurance co could offer group plans of different deductibles... it would get down to maybe $50 or so per person per month for the highest deductible.
This way.. everyone could get as little or as much as they wanted or could afford instead of a mess like the socialist countries have with no choice at all except for the very rich.
lazs