Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is so much pressure to bring down costs, but doctors are forced to risk everything in order to do it. Here we have a case of someone being awarded $28 million dollars because an MRI was not immediately ordered for her back pain, and it turned out to be caused by a tumor.
Yet, if we start immediately ordering MRIs on anyone who walks into our offices with back pain, we will be spending tens of millions of dollars for every ONE person that might be helped by the MRI. Quite the predicament. I see this type of thing every day in my practice. Sometimes I order the test, and sometimes I don't. But when I don't, I always have an uneasy feeling that this could come back to bite me one day.
How do we ever bring down costs when this risk is out there? And how do we remove the risk without some sort of public outcry?
I found this blog article to be very on point and accurate...
Quote:
Recently, a jury awarded a young California resident $28.2 million for a delayed diagnosis of a pelvic tumor. The jury found Kaiser Permanente (KP) negligent. Doctors in the system, touted to be one of the finest systems by the president, allegedly refused an immediate MRI for back pain in a 17 year old. The patient eventually received an MRI three months after presentation, which found a tumor so extensive that the patient needed an amputation.
Your medical insurance is unmanageable... Your civil exposure unlimited...tough time for medicine
Who wants to be a doctor and how easy it is to be overwhelmed... Being kind and good hearted..caring for the sick ... Now it's about lawyers and hospital administration
Not as bad as bring a policeman...but still not so fun having to look over your shoulder every second for some sleezeoid lawyer... Or sue ready patient
Physicians need to do whats right for the patient not for them. Most of us are paying customers and should be treated as such. I have found that in this current age most Doctors will do things thats best for them not the patient.
Physicians need to do whats right for the patient not for them. Most of us are paying customers and should be treated as such. I have found that in this current age most Doctors will do things thats best for them not the patient.
Ordering an MRI was not the best for that patient.
Physicians need to do whats right for the patient not for them. Most of us are paying customers and should be treated as such. I have found that in this current age most Doctors will do things thats best for them not the patient.
I don't think you are fully understanding the quandary here. In this case the thing that would have (possibly???) helped this particular patient, and the thing that would have protected the doctor were in alignment. But it is at the cost of the entire system as a whole.
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 08-16-2016 at 07:11 AM..
Your medical insurance is unmanageable... Your civil exposure unlimited...tough time for medicine
Who wants to be a doctor and how easy it is to be overwhelmed... Being kind and good hearted..caring for the sick ... Now it's about lawyers and hospital administration
Not as bad as bring a policeman...but still not so fun having to look over your shoulder every second for some sleezeoid lawyer... Or sue ready patient
MJ?
Are you talking about Michael Jackson or Marijuana?
If by Michael Jackson, you mean propofol, then yes. It is definitely the best sleep agent available for a number of reasons. Jackson's problem was that he was abusing the drug, and most importantly, it was not being administered by an anesthesiologist.
If you mean Marijuana, it does not have a practical use in anesthesia, but I have no problem with people using it recreationally as long as alcohol is legal as well.
If (when) we move towards more socialized medicine and a single payor, it must come with comprehensive and significant tort reform. It will be a huge challenge to convince legislators, a large number of whom are lawyers, to do this. It will be a tough sell to the American people who have grown so accustomed to expecting perfect outcomes every time and suing someone if that doesn't happen, regardless of whether the action is negligent or not. Most people also fail to realize that they are paying only a small fraction of the cost for the health care services they receive, and they are one of only multiple customers the provider has to deal with and satisfy.
In countries with socialized medicine, it is very difficult to sue and win huge awards from providers because the provider is the government itself. The only way their systems work is with cost containment in the form of limited liability, restrictions on procedures (which many call quotas) and related measures. That's what OP is referring to, and if we want to have that type of system in this country, we have to accept those limitations. It's the only thing that will work.
Last edited by Texas Ag 93; 08-16-2016 at 07:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
