Study: MDs Stopping High-Risk Procedures

ATLANTA (AP) -- Nearly one in five Georgia doctors are abandoning high-risk medical procedures, including delivering babies, and hundreds more are leaving the state or retiring because of high medical malpractice insurance rates, according to a study released Saturday.

"Medical liability insurance is a serious problem in Georgia," said Bruce Deighton, executive director of the Georgia Board for Physician Workforce, which released the study. "We're not saying we have an answer to correct that, but it does have an impact on the physician supply in Georgia and it does reduce access to medical care in Georgia."

Doctors in several states have complained about rising malpractice insurance rates, driven at least in part by large jury awards. Some surgeons in West Virginia and Mississippi temporarily walked off the job in protest earlier this month, and New Jersey doctors are considering a walkout in February.

The board, an advisory body to the Legislature, surveyed 2,200 Georgia doctors for the study.

It projected that about 2,800 Georgia doctors - or nearly 18 percent - were expected to stop providing high-risk procedures to limit their liability. Nearly one in three obstetrician/gynecologists surveyed said they will abandon high-risk procedures, such as delivering babies.

About 11 percent of Georgia doctors have stopped or will stop providing emergency room services, and 4 percent have decided to leave the state or retire because of high insurance rates, the study said.

In June, the American Medical Association said Georgia was one of 12 "crisis" states where rising insurance costs could lead doctors to leave or limit their practices.

Georgia requires medical liability insurance for doctors to practice there, and the prices are high.

The 2002 rates reported by the doctors surveyed ranged from just under $8,000 a year for psychiatry to more than $60,000 for neurosurgery. Obstetricians reported paying nearly $50,000. And the doctors reported prices increasing anywhere from 11 percent to 30 percent in the last year.

About 13 percent of doctors had difficulty finding malpractice insurance coverage, and one in five changed insurance carriers last year, the study said.

Medical groups in Georgia, including the Medical Association of Georgia and the Georgia Hospital Association, want legislation that would limit damages for pain and suffering in malpractice cases.

"We don't want to see (a strike) in Georgia," said David Cook, executive director of the medical association. "What we want to do is have a responsible solution to the problem."

Okay, an obstetrician that doesn't deliver babies. That'll fix his profit margins!

Yes, It will.
He can make more money on pap smears, pelvic pain, endotriosis, hysterectomy, cancer treatment of ovarian, uterine and cervical cancer, bladder suspensions and other things. Delivering a baby is like a theatre having a movie,(they make money on the drinks and candy) it gets the female customer into his office for the follow up stuff(multiple procedures and follow up visits for check ups in the normal course of a woman's life).

As far as delivering babies "as far back as the beginning of time" that's true. However if you look at the "old" movies about having babies, you'll notice fathers smoking outside and worried apprehension... the reason why was that women used to DIE in childbirth, Babies used to DIE in childbirth. That little fact is so erased from the American public that any complication, any defect of child (up to 5% of births with minor defect), any bad outcome becomes "suit worthy".

I'd like to not treat lawyers... any of them or their families... screw' em. But the law states I've got to treat any POS that goes to my ER. That's the only way to get the parasites off our backs. As it is when I treat lawyers or their kids, they get every test known to man in order to insure I don't miss some rare complication or abnormal presentation of serious illness, they get every broad spectrum antibiotic and a specialist in whatever field of chief complaint is consulted.

If they refuse this I have them sign a refusal of medical care and have them indemnify me and have the nurse go through an entire check list of complication that may arise from the "illness" including , Death, permanent brain injury, blindness, loss of hearing, taste, smell, sensation, paralysis, chronic intolerable pain, loss of consortium, inability to participate in pleasurable hobbies, activities, or familial obligation, prevention of ability to earn, or travel, and inablity to concentrate for prolinged periods of time. Even doing this they can claim that because of the nature of the illness they were unable to give an "informed consent" and I'm liable or have to defend a suit if they file... The funny thing is even doing all of this will still and most likely will get me sued in case of a bad outcome. But because I'll have to pay lawyers expense whether I win or lose.... hell with it, I might as well have some funny taking up their time at a per hour rate that they won't get to bill somebody.

basically kill them with kindness and paperwork. I don't hate lawyers any more than I hate maggots or rats or snakes.... I hate what they do, it's in their "nature"....

I'm gonna love when some lawyers kid can't have a premature baby or has a car wreck and instead of high risk attempt at resucitation... they just get the head shake and "Sorry we can't offer that service here... it carries to much liability."

Beautiful........... that's justice cause that's what their causing everybody else to go through.

I heard an interesting theory about how to "solve" this problem. I'd like to get other's comments.

The theory was that insurance should not be with the doctor but with the patient. In other words, when seaking treatment, the patient must provide an insurance policy to the doctor or hospital that would indemnify the doctor against all claims from the patient save intentional harm or gross missconduct (obviously beyond common or acceptable practice).

Should injury result, the patient could then collect against their insurance policy up to the limits that they paid for.

Another version of this would be to have a patient's insurance cover the first $X amount (set by the policy) and then the doctor's insurance would cover all after up to the legal limit. The doctor would be able to charge an amount for any "gap" in coverages.

For example, the doctor decides that he needs $250K to be provided by the patient but the patient only has $100K in coverage leaving a $150K gap. The doctor would then go to his insurance company and get a customer specific policy to cover the gap and pass on those costs to the customers.

Thus, doctors who do poor work would have a higher premium. Patients who sue often are less likely to be covered by insurance in the first place and when they do go and seek treatment, their gaps will be higher and their costs to cover the gap will be greater.

I would also think that the "value" of the human's life could be established by that person simply by adding up the total coverage of all the life insurance that the person opted to pay for. So, if I buy a 50K policy, then my life is worth 50K - because I said so. If I buy a 500K policy, then that is what my life is worth. Then caping awards to the limit of life insurance would be a logical (if a bit harsh) limit on awards.

What do you guys think
[opening the floor for debate]

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.