Posted on 03/12/2008 10:34:40 AM PDT by Harrius Magnus
States May Warn Doctors to Follow Smoker Treatment Guidelines or be Sued for Medical Malpractice
State health commissioners may soon begin warning about medical malpractice law suits which could be brought by smokers against physicians who fail to follow federal and other guidelines in treating them, putting pressure on the medical profession similar to that put on the tobacco industry by earlier smoker law suits.
Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whom the media has dubbed a "driving force behind the lawsuits that have cost tobacco companies billions of dollars," and the "law professor who masterminded litigation against the tobacco industry," has written to the health commissioners of the fifty states suggesting that they warn their state's doctors about such law suits based upon a recent article in a leading medical journal and an even more recent study about saving smoker lives.
The letter notes a recent study which shows that physicians are killing more than 40,000 American smokers each year by failing to follow federal guidelines which mandate that the doctor warn the smoking patient about the many dangers of smoking and provide effective medical treatment for the majority who wish to quit.
"The families of any one of those 40,000 victims – or the hundreds of thousands more who suffer heart attacks, strokes, amputations, blindness, or other problems because of their smoking – could sue physicians for malpractice for failing to follow the standard of medical care mandated by these guidelines," says Banzhaf, who serves as Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America's first antismoking organization.
Indeed, the New York City Department of Health has already warned that "because physician intervention can be so effective, failure to provide optimal counseling and treatment [for smoking] is failure to meet the standard of care – and could be considered malpractice."
Also, a medical journal noted that the "failure of many doctors and hospitals to deal with tobacco use and dependence raises the question of whether this failure could be considered malpractice, given the Public Health Service guidelines' straightforward recommendations, their efficacy in preventing serious disease and cost-effectiveness. . . . a court could have sufficient basis to find that the failure to adequately treat the main cause of preventable disease and death in the US qualifies as a violation of the legal duty that doctors and hospitals owe to patients habituated to tobacco use and dependence.”
The US Public Health Service’s Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence provide that “every patient who uses tobacco should be offered at least one of [two] treatments.” Many major guidelines by other respected medical bodies – e.g., the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, etc. – also require that smoking patients receive not just warnings but also treatment, including counseling.
However, as the Partnership for Prevention recently noted, in a report sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the WellPoint Foundation, fewer than 30% of smoking patients receive even the minimal treatment required by the guidelines. The report estimates that this refusal by physicians and hospitals to follow the Guidelines kills more than 40,000 smokers each year.
Banzhaf's letter to the health commissioners suggested that: "Since many in the antismoking community (including hundreds of organizations, many with their own attorneys), as well as lawyers associated with antismoking groups and other lawyers in private practice, are now considering how to proceed with the article’s litigation suggestion, the need to remind doctors of their responsibilities and of their potential legal liability is paramount – especially since their continued refusal to even warn many patients about smoking, much less to follow the guidelines’ requirements of effective intervention, kills over 40,000 patients each year."
"Since physician malpractice kills over 40,000 smokers annually – more than motor vehicle or product liability accidents – it should not be surprising if antismoking lawyers, as well as those in private practice working on contingency fees, find physicians who deliberately flout federal guidelines to be a major target of litigation."
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III Executive Director and Chief Counsel Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) 2013 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20006, USA (202) 659-4310 // http://ash.org
All costs and fines in addition to legal fees defending lawsuits have been passed on to us smokers, not to mention the Gazillions in Fed, State and other taxes we have paid--much MORE than could ever be considered as a "cost" associated with any perceived "treatment" (WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINITIVELY PROVEN ANYWAY) to other non-smokers.
Also, it has been widely publicized that we smokers die prematurely as a result of our nasty, disgusting habits.
If so, does it not stand to reason that we are saving even more Bazillions in Social Security benefits not having to be paid?
I would bet that presently, Illegal Aliens are probably costing more in health services than smokers not to mention, the "weight challenged," who are also said to suffer more incidences of diabetes, hypertension, heart conditions, etc.
ENOUGH ALREADY. Either ban it completely or leave us to hell alone!!!
" Patients unwilling to try to quit tobacco use should be provided with a brief intervention designed to increase their motivation to quit.
One important conclusion of this guideline is that the most effective way to move clinicians to intervene is to provide them with information regarding multiple efficacious treatment options and to ensure that they have ample institutional support to use these options. Indeed, in this guideline, the panel encourages a culture of health care in which failure to treat tobacco use—the chief cause of preventable disease and death—constitutes an inappropriate standard of care."
I found it at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use.pdf
Now they are threatening health care providers with lawsuits if they do not act as "Big Brother". How long will it be before doctors begin to refuse to treat smokers as patients, or increase the cost of office visits for smokers? (even for non smoking-related visits)
You mean your family doctor didn't sit you down on your yearly visit when you were 11 years old, give you a cigarette and a Zippo lighter, and tell you to smoke that thing, and to KEEP smoking them?
How awful your childhood must have been.
Oh, what a bunch of crap!
With the huge anti-smoking campaign we've seen in this country, I doubt there's a person out there that knows that smoking isn't good for you. And I'd like to meet a doctor yet who wouldn't be willing to provide some form of treatment for someone who was asking for help quitting.
If the patient doesn't want it, that's their choice. The doctor shouldn't be in a position of having to force it on him.
Thanks for the ping!
Since physician malpractice kills over 40,000 smokers annually
How many children does abortion kill annually. These idiots should get their priorities straight - oh, but there is no money involved in stopping abortions- I forgot.
drs, dentists,they all tell me to quit. never had one that didn’t. “the big lie”. place the word malpractice in the story and immediately head to court with nobody questioning whether or not its true.
global warming. asbestoes lawsuits. and on it goes
And then there is the issue of malpractice insurance, which has doubled or tripled for many specialties in the past decade. It will increase much, much more if doctors are now to be held liable for their patients' own moral failings. There are already plenty of obstetricians whose malpractice insurance payments exceed their take-home income. This new standard of care would make that the rule for everyone who sees patients.
Your internist or family doc or pediatrician has to move the patients through his office in an average of ten minutes or less. If it goes to fifteen minutes, he makes less money than a bus driver. If it goes to twenty minutes, he goes bankrupt and closes his doors.
If he is now required to take a few minutes at each visit to badger every nicotine junkie or glutton about their lifestyle choices, at the risk of being sued for everything he owns if he fails to change their ways, then I can assure you that a lot of them are going to pack it in for good. Society's expectations of physicians have already gone far beyond the reasonable and are now well into the ludicrous. This organization's proposals would push us into the realm of sheer lunacy.
Here is a cost-benefit analysis of medical school versus driving a UPS truck. The results will surprise you. The outcome is similar for skilled tradesmen like plumbers or auto mechanics. It will soon be the case that nobody would want to go to medical school but Mother Theresa types, and there are precious few of those.
We stand on the verge of dismantling the greatest health care system in the world. The time is fast approaching when women in labor will be routinely delivering on their kitchen floors. Society is soon going to have to choose whether it values physicians more than maniacal scolds like Prof. Banzhaf and greedy lawyer slime like John Edwards. There will be no way to keep both.
-ccm
I see they are a graduate of the Spitzer School of Shakedowns and Blackmail.
Wonder if they take the same position on providing medical information on abortions?
Doesn’t matter. Never admit it so the verbal statment can be used against you, that’s what the poster is saying, I think.
That would be the same as pleading guilty before the fact...
Your double cheeseburger with fries is next.
Actually one that disobeys the "new rules" will be entered into the MASTER REFERRAL database.
The newly established Department of Compliance will investigate and report your noncompliance to your employer, the local mental health authority, local, state, and federal law enforcement, for review and final disposition.
Have you seen the latest crop of jurors?
They don’t even have to smoke; there’s ETS.
AMEN!!!!!!!! Well said.
“http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use.pdf
Now they are threatening health care providers with lawsuits if they do not act as “Big Brother”. How long will it be before doctors begin to refuse to treat smokers as patients, or increase the cost of office visits for smokers? (even for non smoking-related visits)”
Yep. 196 pages long, the new standard of care. cram it in with all the other things (firearms, seat belts, etc) in that 10-12.5 minute visit, or risk giving it all up.
FRiend, doctors will refuse smokers. There is no legal way, if you take Medicare, to “increase the cost” to cover a patient who smokes. The fee is fixed - and other insurance companies pay at rates indexed to Medicare.
“drs, dentists,they all tell me to quit. never had one that didn’t.”
My standard rule is that they get one opportunity to lecture me about my smoking. I then make them write it in my chart that they should not ever mention it again. I instruct them that the moment it gets mentioned again, is the moment they lose me as a patient. Most of them are pretty good at following my rules.
THE
GOVERNMENT
OFF OUR BACKS!!
It's probably already happening here. We know for a fact it is already happening in Great Britain.
3 years ago my husband had to take me to the ER on a Friday because I had broken my ankle and our GP doesn't have Friday office hours. One of the first questions I was asked (after name and insurance info) was did I smoke. What does smoking have to do with a broken ankle?
To be honest, had I been smoking at the time I most likely would not have broken my ankle. Had I had a lit cigarette I would have turned a light on to put it in an ashtray, instead of crossing a dark room and tripping.
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.