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.
I did, I recently moved from Maryland (E. Cummings is about as liberal/socialist Democrat as they come). Sent him a long email. All I got was a pre-recorded phone call from his office telling me how good healthcare reform would be.
Great your opinion has been noted and filed. Government works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
Of course defensive medicine costs are bogus/estimates as you claim. So why doesn't the government throw real money into sponsoring a study. Why are they offering to give 25 million for a study while they want to throw 8.5 BILLLION towards the now defunct liberal leaning pimp approving ACORN?
Republicans ran the show for 8 years. What's their excuse. I don't think it's a cost that's material. Why not study the medical costs of hang nails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
Most malpractice cases rarely reach the courts. Even those that do reach, the plaintiffs lose over 70-80% of the time.
Most insurance companies promptly settle cases that have merit. I'll have to see a link to the 70-80% loss rate.
Great your opinion has been noted and filed. Government works.
Republicans ran the show for 8 years. What's their excuse. I don't think it's a cost that's material. Why not study the medical costs of hang nails.
Most insurance companies promptly settle cases that have merit. I'll have to see a link to the 70-80% loss rate.
Most commonly quoted stats quoted by medical malpractice firms:
Plaintiffs won 27% of medical malpractice cases in 75 of the largest counties in the US 2001 (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
That's based on the 2001 study.
It's 2010 and I just took a risk management course. That number really is closely to around 20% won by plaintiffs. I can't cite those current sources online because it's copyrighted material with the course but the 2001 sources are available widely online.
I just read the story that was linked in the original post.
truly a sad scenario, when the lawyer bits are removed.
The truth in my opinion is that the Primary care doctor and the patient both failed in this one.
I mean, the primary care doc should have followed up when they did not receive the test results in a timely manner.
But on the other hand, if I was the patient, I would have followed up with the doc and asked what the results were.
Although I think the doctor was negligent, I seriously do not believe this warrants a multimillion dollar verdict. It was a mistake, and it was a costly mistake. The emphasis needs to be preventing this scenario.
And I think electronics medical records could reduce this, but something as simple as the primary care doctor explaining to the patient that I should have these test result by such and such date, if you haven't heard from me by then, CALL ME to find out what happened!
So the lawyers will argue it's the physicians duty to gently hold the patients hand and drive them over to the referring surgeon. Make sure the patient is all signed in at the surgeons office. That's really the crux of this lawsuit. This real issue is the patient knew they needed a referral. It wasn't a one time reminder. It was multiple times. The patient wanted the doctor to do everything (make appointments etc) But it's a medicaid patient and that complicated matters.
Just imagine we will have 16 million new medicaid patients come 2014. So many physicians have already dropped out taking medicaid patients. Do we hand hold each any every one of these medicaid patients with a much smaller referral physician base.
For a case for malpractice, you must meet 4 legal criteria. It's very hard to meet all 4 criterias. I won't go into the details. But juries are stupid. They are not a jury of my peers. If I had a jury of my peers, it would be all professional educated people with at least a doctorate degree. Or I would take a panel of 5 judges, and at least have 4 out of the 5 judges agree on a verdict.
Lawyers breed off emotions. Juries "feel sorry" for the plaintiff or plaintiff's family. They say, all that doctor has insurance, we will just hit the insurance company and no one really gets hurt. My cousin tries malpractice cases from time to time. It's all a side game in the court room. It gets to the point they try to confuse juries and play to there juries emotions that some harm has been done and there's needs to be compensation.
Do I feel bad for this woman and her family? Sure I do. No doubt about it. But she was informed to seek care, the doctor advised her to seek care.
What about me taking my car into the mechanic last year. He said my brakes were worn down. I needed to replace them soon. I know there a problem. Continue to use my car. One day later, my brakes give out and I crash into a tree. Can I sue my mechanic? Wait, the mechanic has no insurance to sue for. But isn't the mechanic negligent because he merely advised me to get my brakes fixed but I didn't?
Most commonly quoted stats quoted by medical malpractice firms:
Plaintiffs won 27% of medical malpractice cases in 75 of the largest counties in the US 2001 (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
That's based on the 2001 study.
It's 2010 and I just took a risk management course. That number really is closely to around 20% won by plaintiffs. I can't cite those current sources online because it's copyrighted material with the course but the 2001 sources are available widely online.
Of course you can cite the source online. You can even selectively quote the source. Copyright precludes wholesale copying. Fair use provides for selective quotation with attribution. No source no credit.
BTW focusing only on the cases that go to trial is a poor approach to understanding the problem.
The doctor did give instructions for the patient to go see a surgeon. It's up to the patient to find a surgeon who would accept Medicaid. You can handhold every single patient. The patient was clearly advised to seek further care. You realize in civil matters, judges let cases go to trial even on the very minute amount of evidence.
Make it a loser pays system or limit amount of awards given to trial attorneys like they do in other countries. Notice I didn't say limit patients awards. Patients should have their day in court and be properly compensated if something has been done wrong.
Like it or not, the patient is ultimately responsible for following up on his own health. That's the way the world works: whoever needs the contact most must initiate it. Nobody calls salesmen back; but we sure call our bosses back quickly.
I would like to expand on your last point. We want "health care as a right for everyone," but at the same time continue to produce huge numbers of tort liability lawyers chasing exorbitant lottery awards--which the lawyers then take 1/3 or more of! As a society, we cannot afford to let juries of "average people" (generally chosen by the lawyers to be the ones ruled entirely by emotion and lacking any logical thinking ability) decide what kind of lottery award a family will get after losing a loved one. An educated, responsible panel of people (perhaps judges, perhaps not) should make a logical decision on this.
My life experience with juries: My husband is an engineer, I have a Master's degree, and both of us have been called for jury duty selection several times. We were never chosen to serve on any jury, even though we were both in the front seats that require being specifically rejected by the lawyers, and neither of us said anything to disqualify ourselves. One lawyer who had disqualified my husband on one of the potential juries saw him at lunch that day and went over. He asked, "Do you know why I made sure you weren't on the jury?" My husband replied, "I'm an engineer. I look at everything logically, and wouldn't be swayed by someone trying to persuade me one way or the other." The lawyer smiled and replied, "Exactly. That's why no decent lawyer would ever pick an engineer to sit on a jury."
Everyone take note that in this massive, complex, bureaucratic "Obamacare" system costing over $1 trillion in new taxes, there is virtually nothing that would limit the rise in health care costs, let alone reduce them. And specifically, the Democrats made sure that absolutely nothing touched the tort liability system that is a big contributor to making health care insurance unaffordable.
Imagine if your doctor didn't have to pay $100,000-$500,000 a year in malpractice premiums: do you think he'd still have to charge $125 for a 5-minute office visit?
Of course you can cite the source online. You can even selectively quote the source. Copyright precludes wholesale copying. Fair use provides for selective quotation with attribution. No source no credit.
BTW focusing only on the cases that go to trial is a poor approach to understanding the problem.
A winning percentage of 27% is still a loss rate of over 77% by the plaintiffs in medical malpractice rates.
If I have time, I will try to fish out the paperwork on the 80% loss rate by plaintiffs.
It just seems you have you have drawn your line in the sand on this issue. You don't see it from both sides. I do see it from both sides of the story. I think plantiffs should have their day in court. If they lose, they should pay legal costs of the defendant party. If they win, the defendant pays the costs. That's fair isn't it? And if the lawyers are "out in the best interest of the client" they would cap their contingency fee at 20%.
This isn't even about a Republican/Democrat issue. It's more of the American Trial Lawyers Association flexing their muscle anytime their potential income can take a hit.
the tort liability system that is a big contributor to making health care insurance unaffordable.
Imagine if your doctor didn't have to pay $100,000-$500,000 a year in malpractice premiums: do you think he'd still have to charge $125 for a 5-minute office visit?
1. The evidence is clear: the system we have, that enables a person injured by medical malpractice to sue the person who injured him, the same as anyone else who is injured by the negligent act of another, is not a significant contributor to health care costs.
2. I don't have to imagine. There are already states that have adopted draconian limits on noneconomic damages and they have not seen any reductions in malpractice premiums or the cost of practicing medicine.
1. The evidence is clear: the system we have, that enables a person injured by medical malpractice to sue the person who injured him, the same as anyone else who is injured by the negligent act of another, is not a significant contributor to health care costs.
2. I don't have to imagine. There are already states that have adopted draconian limits on noneconomic damages and they have not seen any reductions in malpractice premiums or the cost of practicing medicine.
What evidence is clear? The only evidence cites by lawyers is 1% of all healthcare costs. They only count malpractice premiums, legal costs, and closed claims cases.
You and the rest of the pro malpractice lawyers always cite this older report:
So now that 1% (malpractice premiums, legal costs, and closed claims cases) has doubled to 2%.
But we are still missing what the cost of defensive medicine is? Again why does Obama suggest giving 25 million to fund a study. 25 million is nothing. But Obama tried to give the now defunct ACORN up to 8.5 BILLION in ear marks last year with his stimulus package.
There's no study on the cost of defensive medicine. No one wants to sponsor it. Who do you think is opposed to it? I'll give you a hint. They usually go to professional school for 3 years and many of their graduates below to a professional member group called the ABA.
A winning percentage of 27% is still a loss rate of over 77% by the plaintiffs in medical malpractice rates.
If I have time, I will try to fish out the paperwork on the 80% loss rate by plaintiffs.
No winning 27% (and I doubt this number) mean that the plaintiffs win the 75% or so of the complaints filed and settled before court and 27% (using your number) of those litigated. Independent reviews show that 90+% of medical malpractice lawsuits are based upon documented harm to the patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
It just seems you have you have drawn your line in the sand on this issue. You don't see it from both sides. I do see it from both sides of the story. I think plantiffs should have their day in court. If they lose, they should pay legal costs of the defendant party. If they win, the defendant pays the costs. That's fair isn't it?
Actually it distinctly favors the insurance company. It would make most medical lawsuits impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
This isn't even about a Republican/Democrat issue. It's more of the American Trial Lawyers Association flexing their muscle anytime their potential income can take a hit.
The Republicans have made it an issue. And it's the doctors/Republicans who are trying to throw out a systems of checks and balances that has existed as long as this country.
And lets not lose track of the overarching issue. We don't have a crisis of malpractice lawsuits we have a crisis of medical malpractice -- 200 thousand avoidable deaths a year is the problem.
Of course you can cite the source online. You can even selectively quote the source. Copyright precludes wholesale copying. Fair use provides for selective quotation with attribution. No source no credit.
BTW focusing only on the cases that go to trial is a poor approach to understanding the problem.
Found the reference material. The reason I can't give you the direct link is it's a subscription based site.
I love stats. So many people read stats differently. So you want evidence.
Like I said previously, I can't copy and paste these articles because they are all copyrighted and it's illegal to give you the full article unless you are a paid subscribers.
But here's a small clip of what these articles found:
"Further, for claims that are actually brought to trial, the percentages that are won by the doctor are also rising, from an overall average of 82 percent from 1985 to 2007 to 92 percent in 2007 alone."
"The review found that physicians win between 80 and 90 percent of jury trials with weak evidence of malpractice, 70 percent of the borderline cases, and even half of the trials in which the plaintiff presented strong evidence of physician negligence. Further, between 80 and 90 percent of the claims rated as defensible by the physician reviewers were dropped or dismissed without payment."
"The bad news is that, even when the physician wins or the claim gets dropped, the expense of litigation is enormous. In 2007, the average amount spent to defend a claim in which the defendant physician won the verdict was over $117,000, and PIAA affiliates spent in excess of $696 million to defend claims between 1985 and 2007. Of course, these costs get passed on to doctors in the form of higher malpractice insurance premiums."
Since I am always fair and balanced (and no, I don't watch Fox news...they are little over the top for my tastes) I did find that 73% malpractice cases were settled before trial involving of cases of medication errors. but at the same time 72% of cases filed without medical errors were denied compensation
And yes between 100K-200K cases of preventable deaths each year (according to the Institues of Health ) but some question these stats because because they don't account for probably outcome. JAMA estimated in 2001 that out of 10000 "preventable deaths identified", 1 out of those 10000 were have even survived even with "optimal care".
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.
Expanding on the point
