“It’s our malpractice system and its reliance on fault that are responsible for increasing damage awards and costly defensive medicine on the part of physicians.”
“The American malpractice system relies on fault. It requires the injured victim and their attorney to allege fault and to accuse the medical provider of substandard medicine. The system requires the medical provider and their attorney to defend against these charges — which, in turn, motivates the provider to conceal rather than document mistakes — and to practice defensive medicine. Having providers conceal their errors is antithetical to quality improvement programs, which require the diligent identification of individual and system errors to establish proper corrective actions. The provider’s practice of defensive medicine is not only costly; it exposes patients to medically unnecessary treatment.”
Sounds like no-fault insurance would be the ideal solution. CodeBlueNow! has come out with a malpractice fact sheet as well. Worthwhile reading.
Related posts:
- Maybe we need Medicare to go bankrupt
- Should severe birth injuries be pulled out of the court system, and can defensive medicine be good?
- What if there were more pet plaintiffs?
- Medical malpractice verdicts
- Malpractice is not always the physician’s fault
- Lawyer: "I want my doctor to use defensive medicine"
- Defensive medicine in the news
{ 1 comment }
If no fault sounds so good, why not advocate for it instead of marching on state capitols for immunity? If it would be so great, why aren’t insurers pushing it?
The fact is, you guys talk about how you want to work to better the patients’ lives, but the truth is you just want a few more dollars.
Comments on this entry are closed.