Posted on 11/18/2008 1:18:58 PM PST by socialismisinsidious
Primary care doctors in the United States feel overworked and nearly half plan to either cut back on how many patients they see or quit medicine entirely, according to a survey released on Tuesday.
And 60 percent of 12,000 general practice physicians found they would not recommend medicine as a career.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Many people disagree with the notion that a jackpot award is a “just” compensation. The two are not the same in any circumstances.
It used to be that incompetence/malfeasance AND awareness of this fact were necessary. Under these conditions, seldom will you find a case of malpractice. Now we bilk insurance companies for poor outcomes. That is not just in most people’s opinions.
The failure to use the same ordinary care that would be expected of a person with similar training and experience.
It sounds great on paper, but folks with embarrassing medical histories are less likely to honest and forthcoming because using electronic medical records means the most personal data can become compromised and made public. No security system is perfect. The withholding of pertinent medical history will lead to extra diagnostic testing negating the expected reduction in costs from electronic medical records, IMHO. I wonder if any studies have been done?
The real problem is that an uneducated populace sitting on juries has redefined “malpractice” as “any time the doctor doesn’t perform a miracle and cure the patient, regardless of the circumstances.”
No one is saying that it is, but I will note that "jackpot" awards are few and far between; rather, most tort awards are too low to adequately compensate the injured party. Anyhow, addressing what I actually said, requiring the injured party to bear the burden of the doctor's negligence is unjust under any rational standard. The doctor, like any person, should bear the full cost of his conduct.
It used to be that incompetence/malfeasance AND awareness of this fact were necessary.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying, but are you seriously arguing for a standard where an incompentent doctor, who unintentionally but negligently injures a patient, should be absolved of liability?
“The failure to use the same ordinary care that would be expected of a person with similar training and experience.”
Bah. That’s the legal definition, not how it plays out in real life.
As for compensating the “victims,” without a doctor they would have suffered/died anyway. The current system is going to lead — or rather already has lead in some fields such as OB/GYN — to too few doctors, so even more will suffer/die.
The harsh reality is the perfect medical care does not exist, doctors are human and make mistakes, but punishing them for being human ensures that we won’t/don’t have enough of them. They need protection from the trial lawyers except in egregious cases. Otherwise, the system is unsustainable, and there will be a LOT MORE victims of non-treatment than 1% or even 10% honest mistakes in treatment.
remarkably consistent
“Further, even if a claim isn’t denied, an individual can be underinsured, leaving the injured party to bear part of the cost of the tortfeasor’s negligence. That is unjust.”
Not at all. Why should one party pay the others attorney’s fees - plus the attorneys collect a percentage not just normal fees.
“The doctor, like any person, should bear the full cost of his conduct.”
Since the cost of a well performed procedure is finite, whereas the cost of making a mistake is essentially infinite (death), the only rational way for a doctor to prevent incurring more cost than benefit is NOT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE. Ergo, your premise leads to a defunct medical system.
Should the patient bear the cost? Well, it’s better than wrecking the entire system. However, there are cost-spreading mechanisms out there. Insurance is one of them. The problem, though, is that ignorant juries at the prompting of many trial lawyers see the insurance companies as “deep pockets,” distorting the cost-spreading mechanism into a cost-accentuating mechanism.
The solution? Texas implemented a decent one. Is it perfect? Nope, but NOTHING is perfect, and it is better than the current system most everywhere else in the US. Does it suck for the patient who is injured by a doctor’s mistake? Yup, but at least the patient had a CHANCE to get good treatment — and most other patients get good treatment — which is a dang sight better than where we are heading now, namely not even the chance of good treatment.
” Now we bilk insurance companies for poor outcomes. “
Good point.
“The failure to use the same ordinary care that would be expected of a person with similar training and experience. “
But that is not the standard used. If it is an honest mistake all that should be required is best efforts to repair the problem. All this pain and suffering and lost wages on elective surgery or treatment needs to go away.
“The failure to use the same ordinary care that would be expected of a person with similar training and experience. “
But that is not the standard used. If it is an honest mistake all that should be required is best efforts to repair the problem. All this pain and suffering and lost wages on elective surgery or treatment needs to go away.
Last summer, when docs thought we were going to take a 10% cut, even the self-employed all still went to work - was it 2 weeks? We either love our jobs or are masochists. Or both.
I closed my practice in 2003 when everyone said that HIPPA meant I needed a new computer system and there were rumors that the fraud-and-abuse charges would start all over again. Since I had just paid off my business loan and my lease was up, I decided to work for other people, part time.
Just wait until the new administration restarts the fraud-and-abuse cases for miscoding or filing some paper wrong.
No, actually, just wait until the new administration tries to draft us all.
The EMR I’ve been using at one of my jobs is horrible. Since I’m locum tenens, I don’t have my own templates and there’s no reason to invest my time in making them. There’s no way to finish it while I’m with the patient, so I have to go back when I’m “off.”
This last line sounds like a coming government mandate for docs to spend more money for technology that isn’t that useful.
When there isn't negligence, there shouldn't be ANY compensation. Furthermore, it should be made very clear that people will bear the brunt of bring a suit where there is no negligence.
No one is saying that it is, but I will note that "jackpot" awards are few and far between; rather, most tort awards are too low to adequately compensate the injured party.
I will note that jackpot awards are "leaders" for the industry and serve as an inspiration to all; I site the state lottery as evidence, and who plays it, how often, etc. You site nothing, just assert tort awards are "too low," claiming they are inadequate. And then you give us this chestnut:
Further, even if a claim isn't denied, an individual can be underinsured, leaving the injured party to bear part of the cost of the tortfeasor's negligence. That is unjust.
And who is repsonsible for the decision to be "underinsured?" It would have to be someone other than the aggrieved party since, according to you, their compensation is "unjust." The implication, of course, is that someone must pay!!! Right, just like it isn't my fault if I underinsure my house and it gets obliterated in a typhoon. Aetna cuts me a check for the 250k I insured my 500k house with - presto! Instant "unjust."
Of course we can all figure out who is the ultimate winner in this grievance-and-misery-exchange.
I was making a philosophical and perhaps religious point, and chose poorly in making it to someone who clearly finds opportunity in the moral bloodletting of this country. So be it. My point was that for some, pain/loss does not have a monetary value; in fact, some would even be insulted to suggest as much.
No doubt you will now counsel me in the errors of my value system, that indeed the transcendent can be purchased, and that love is indeed for sale - just pony up $40: Give you $30 and give the leftover $10 to Mary Lou Rottencrotch when I am done. This is the degree of abhorrence I have towards the current justice system and those profiteers whose support this Whore of Babylon.
My daughter is a med student and mentioned this article to me. She has informed her father and me that she is seriously rethinking a medical career. She is a Spanish major and already a CNA, LPT, and knows medical transcription. Her dream of becoming a cardiac surgeon is about to be dashed - she’s wanted this since she was 13 yo. She and my mom were born with the same heart condition and she wanted to help others.
I hope the lovers of socialism, ‘free stuff’, and getting the rich enjoy the third world healthcare they seek. These &*(!@#$^&^%^ can’t see past their own laziness and greed.
I’m mad as hell that her dream is could be crushed. She’s worked and sacrificed more than people twice her age.
When she and others are willing to discipline themselves and invest the time and energy to want to put their dreams in motion, they earn the right to the rewards (no matter the profession). And they shouldn’t feel guilty about it or be penalized by government intervention!
It is the only “honorable” profession where I would dissuade verbally and refuse to financially support my child.
No but the patient should not get rich off of it. Actually it’s the lawyers that get rich.
And I think when it involves a child money should be put in a trust to submit bills to so the parents can’t get rich while neglecting the child.
With the exception of gross negligence all should be compensated is the money it takes to correct the problem and lost wages.
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.