Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Women may be undergoing unnecessary diagnostic imaging and breast biopsies because radiologists are worried about medical malpractice suits
"The recommendation rates for additional testing after a screening mammogram are much higher in the United States than in other countries. However, Dr. Elmore said previous studies have shown that a higher recall rate does not necessarily result in higher cancer detection rates."
No surprise given the risk of reading mammograms. (via Common Good)
"The recommendation rates for additional testing after a screening mammogram are much higher in the United States than in other countries. However, Dr. Elmore said previous studies have shown that a higher recall rate does not necessarily result in higher cancer detection rates."
No surprise given the risk of reading mammograms. (via Common Good)
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (7)
| 
Comments:
Has a Doctor even been sued for over investigating something?
With all the extra procedures for fear of malpractice, you'd expect some level of "malpractice fear morbidity".
With all the extra procedures for fear of malpractice, you'd expect some level of "malpractice fear morbidity".
# posted by 
: 1:45 AM
: 1:45 AM
This is old news.
Given that reading mammography is a low-reimbursement, high-risk (in terms of malpractice liability) activity and that doing extra diagnostic mammography can bring in a little more reimbursement, well, it makes a perfect "carrot and stick" combination to more imaging. The stick, of course, is fear of malpractice suits, and mammographers are at a high risk for. The carrot is the possibility of improving the reimbursement. Screening mammographs are reimbursed at a rate that barely covers costs (and sometimes not even that). Diagnostic mammograms are reimbursed somewhat better (although still by no means generously).
Given that reading mammography is a low-reimbursement, high-risk (in terms of malpractice liability) activity and that doing extra diagnostic mammography can bring in a little more reimbursement, well, it makes a perfect "carrot and stick" combination to more imaging. The stick, of course, is fear of malpractice suits, and mammographers are at a high risk for. The carrot is the possibility of improving the reimbursement. Screening mammographs are reimbursed at a rate that barely covers costs (and sometimes not even that). Diagnostic mammograms are reimbursed somewhat better (although still by no means generously).
I could use some grant money. I wonder why I didn't think of a study (a survey no less) that proves that doctors are afraid of being sued. I would have never known that without this wonderful peer reviewed article. It just boggles my mind. Who would have thought that doctors are afraid of being sued.
There's more astonishing revelations. Doctors overtreat because they think that is the way to reduce the risk of being sued. Amazing what science can tell you.
What I'd really like to know and yet noone seems to be able to tell me is the correlation between fear of being sued and actually being sued.
There's more astonishing revelations. Doctors overtreat because they think that is the way to reduce the risk of being sued. Amazing what science can tell you.
What I'd really like to know and yet noone seems to be able to tell me is the correlation between fear of being sued and actually being sued.
It's probably similar to the correlation between fear of having prostate cancer and actually having prostate cancer.
Has a Doctor even been sued for over investigating something?
There are several cases currently of surgeons being sued for doing laparotomy (even laparoscopy) to r/o appendicitis and the appendix turns out to be normal. The sharks have made the old adage of 15-20% normal rate for appendectomies and trashed it. I've noted a few patients who have gotten ultrasounds, ct's and MRI's to
r/o appy". Does anyone else notice how surgeons won't take straightforward appy's to the OR anymore? Thank the sharks.
There are several cases currently of surgeons being sued for doing laparotomy (even laparoscopy) to r/o appendicitis and the appendix turns out to be normal. The sharks have made the old adage of 15-20% normal rate for appendectomies and trashed it. I've noted a few patients who have gotten ultrasounds, ct's and MRI's to
r/o appy". Does anyone else notice how surgeons won't take straightforward appy's to the OR anymore? Thank the sharks.
# posted by : 10:37 AM
: 10:37 AM
LOL!
It is in tone, but perhaps not in substance -
The fear of prostate cancer is high. There is little evidence about the utility of screening (we have disagreed about this in the past) but it is still done and expected to be done.
The fear of a lawsuit seems to be high - but the same people who say we should screen for prostate cancer in spite of compelling evidence say that fear of lawsuits is unfounded, and doctors should not change their behavior in the face of unfounded fears.
Post a Comment
It is in tone, but perhaps not in substance -
The fear of prostate cancer is high. There is little evidence about the utility of screening (we have disagreed about this in the past) but it is still done and expected to be done.
The fear of a lawsuit seems to be high - but the same people who say we should screen for prostate cancer in spite of compelling evidence say that fear of lawsuits is unfounded, and doctors should not change their behavior in the face of unfounded fears.
