Posted on 10/07/2004 8:43:24 AM PDT by thepace
John Edwards said the other night, regarding Bush and Cheney's proposed medical liability reform:
There are a lot of ways that he could represent this so that it was technically true, but the thrust of this statement -- that huge malpractice payouts do not affect what you pay for health insurance -- is patently untrue. I don't necessarily think that Bush's health care plan will solve all of our problems, but medical liability represents one of the most solvable of our healthcare problems, and we have to fix it.Because, in context, everything they're proposing, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, amounts to about half of 1 percent of health-care costs in this country -- half of one percent.
First of all, YOU and I pay for these large payouts in court. If a jury awards a woman $20 million in pain and suffering, the doctor's insurance company may write the $20 million check, but it is you and I who ultimately pay for it.
The insurance company has to raise premiums to offset their risk and to protect their profit margins...they pass these increased costs on to the doctors. The doctors, in order to continue to run their businesses, raise their costs, which you pay directly or your insurer pays. If your insurer pays, they ultimately have to raise premiums. If your employer pays your premiums, they ultimately have to pay you less money in order to do so. YOU PAY FOR IT, AND YOU PAY A LOT.
Take for example, a doctor in Illinois, a state which has no pain and grief caps on malpractice
(Excerpt) Read more at spacetownusa.com ...
I assure you, the story is true.
"This is a very serious issue. Patients are being harmed by errors in the health care system," she says. In the IOM's press release, medical errors were referred to as a "leading cause" of disability and death, killing more people annually than highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. "We can make the system safer by designing safety into the system," Kohn tells WebMD.
"The [IOM] has been looking at the infrastructure of the health care delivery system for years. The notion of looking for medical errors is not new," says Rick Wade, senior vice president of the American Hospital Association. He tells WebMD that one reason for these recommendations coming after public concerns about medical malpractice has been a database lag. "There's a lack of uniformity among states in the reporting of errors," he says. "The systematic safeguards aren't sophisticated from a technologic standpoint, and manual checks are subject to human error."
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_52674.htm
Further, less than 2% of cases where death or injury is caused by malpractice is ever brought to litigation.
That scenario would cost you 5-10x as much. Your insurance provider demands that doctors charge reasonable fees. Patients without health insurance are routinely charge absurd fees. Appendix removal with insurance 1,800. Without insurance = 17,000. Im not sure how the doctors even make it by each month, poor things.
Actually, the scenario he described would likely be considered simple negligence. That is pretty scary to me. Remember the Florida case where the doctor cut the wrong foot off? That was considered simple negligence.
1) As troubling as this case is, you'd have a real problem proving causation. For example, if those lumps represented metastatic melanoma, that poor soul would have died all the same even if she had been taken care of by Marcus Welby.
2) In cases of res ipsa loquitor (and I'm not sure this would be such a case), why should a lawyer be allowed to pocket 30-40% of the award?
3) Is it possible that this poor soul cried wolf once too many times? I'm personally terrified over my somaticizers, because they complain sooooo much that a pathologic condition can fly right under the radar. It's happened to me and I sure paid dearly over that one.
"I've always wondered about the following scenario. If I go to the doctor and tell him I will pay straight cash (no insurance forms to deal with) and waive my right to sue, how much cheaper would the visit be?"
A lot. If I could skip the middle man (third party payer), not have to struggle with collections, and be able to factor out the malpractice costs, I'd (and you) would save a bundle.
The problem is if I sent you to the hospital for some tests, you'd be screwed because if you don't have insurance its strictly cash and carry with them.
"Actually, the scenario he described would likely be considered simple negligence. That is pretty scary to me. Remember the Florida case where the doctor cut the wrong foot off? That was considered simple negligence."
Right, as opposed to malicious intent. I guarantee you there was nothing "simple" about his liability. He probably settled for the cash limits of his policy.
"Appendix removal with insurance 1,800. Without insurance = 17,000."
Insurance is reimbursing appendectomies at $1800???????
Try more like $340-$560 http://www.aap.org/research/medreimpdf01/tx.pdf (see page 7 of the PDF document) These are 1991 data, but trust me, it hasn't changed much - in some cases it has decreased!
Put it into perspective- what does six hundred bucks get you- a transmission overhaul (if you're lucky)? And that appendectomy charge includes all the pre-op and postop care for 90 days. And any surgeon trying to charge 17k for an appendectomy is not going to be in business very long.
"Im not sure how the doctors even make it by each month, poor things."
Your sarcasm is not going to help you very much when you have a ruptured appendix and you can't find a surgeon within a thousand miles due to rising malpractice rates and declining reimbursement!
I know 2 doctors who have quit the profession because of the high rate of malpractice insurance and neither one had been sued.
The Johns, Kerry and Edwards, are fighting for families!
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk10.html
There are not 50,000 patients being killed a year by medical mistakes in America. The function of that story was to set up a Democratic legislative effort to create a new federal agency.
They simply are migrating away from the risky procedures. The best doctors will stop doing risky stuff, while the bad ones will not have the freesom to migrate their practices. The result is an adverse selection of physicians in high risk specialties.
It won't be. Insurance companies pay only a fraction of what you get charged. Insurance companies pay $30 for something that costs you $100. On average, over time, you'll get scalped.
Could be, but the HMO seemed to think the family had a malpractice case. The family didn't sue or even consider suing BTW.
2) In cases of res ipsa loquitor (and I'm not sure this would be such a case), why should a lawyer be allowed to pocket 30-40% of the award?
Are there other professionals who's fees you would like to see limited by federal law? I'm not defending lawyers, but your statement seems to beg the question.
3) Is it possible that this poor soul cried wolf once too many times? I'm personally terrified over my somaticizers, because they complain sooooo much that a pathologic condition can fly right under the radar. It's happened to me and I sure paid dearly over that one.
I can't answer that for sure. She didn't complain about her health in Bible study.
Only the dumbest of Dumocrats don't know that the cost of malpractice insurance gets passed on to the patient.
I wonder how Dumocrats bought Edwards story about how certain health care costs would be paid for out of the "Federal Fund" and therefore not from taxpayers. I forget which health program he was talking about specifically.
This professional has his income limited by law. I suppose if its in the public interest....
In another vein: as you may well know, insurance companies study the numbers behind everything. Want to know the difference between the average attorney represented claim and the unrepresented one? It's just over 30%. You realize this sum represents just the fees paid to the attorney, right? THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT BENEFIT FROM ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION ARE THE DAMN ATTORNIES THEMSELVES.
How is your income limited by law?
The government sets Medicare rates. It's illegal to charge anything but those rates for Medicare patients. The insurance companies peg their rates to the Medicare reimbursement rates. So what I charge is literally out of my hands.
Then again, I guess I could work 20 hours a day seven days a week and make a bundle.
So essentially its a contractual arrangement that you can chose to accept or reject.
If someone responds with a link could you please ping me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.