Another pro-reform citation of the Studdert study:
Dr. Bret DeLone, a Harrisburg-area surgeon, disputes the association’s conclusion that the system is working well. He pointed to another study, published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine, that said more than half of the money awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits went to attorneys’ fees and administrative costs.“That’s where the money ends up. … Of course they’re happy with the present system,” he said.
Related posts:
- Are juries getting smarter?
- If health reformers want to emulate Canada and Europe, can we copy their malpractice systems too?
- John Edwards calls reducing medical malpractice lawsuits a "good idea"
- Reforming health care in the current economic climate
- "Current, typical medical practice invites lawsuits"
- Not every medical error is malpractice
- How malpractice attorneys decide which cases to accept
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
So who is going to tell us how they would remove the administrative costs of insurers from any malpractice system? Your attempts to discredit the most recent study continue to fall flat.
The main criticism of the current system is the cost. So please let us know how any of your proposed alternatives will reduce the administrative overhead of insurers. Do you have any solutions to the only legitimate criticism you can come up with in our current system?
Comments on this entry are closed.