Continuing the good fight for health courts:
On Thursday, July 13th, the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing entitled “Innovative Solutions to Medical Liability.” At the hearing, Common Good General Counsel Paul Barringer will testify in support of health courts as a viable alternative to the current medical justice system. He will speak to the failings of the current system and how health courts can ameliorate these problems. Other witnesses will include Professor Michelle Mello, Harvard School of Public Health, and Professor Jeffrey O’Connell, University of Virginia School of Law.To tune into the live webcast of the hearing, use this link starting at 9:50am EST on Thursday, July 13th.
Similar Posts:
- Health courts, and how they can save our health care system
- I’ll be on the Health in 30 Radio Show, Thursday, July 30th at 12:30pm Eastern
- How a nursing student got expelled for blogging
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 16 comments }
If you are a supporter of arbitrary damage caps set by lobbyists, you should definitely get behind this. It’s one of your best shots.
More special privilages – this time in the form of courts to absolve the providers of their responsibility when they commit malpractice.
What we really need is a revamping of the rules of evidence governing expert medical testimony to throw out both the BS John Edwards’ cerebral palsy scientific travesties (including the streetwalker providers that worked for Mr. Edwards), the BS psychiatric defenses for perverts and criminals and the BS “whiplash” claims.
It’s a sad day for America when advocating for MORE lobbying influence constitutes “the good fight”.
Thank goodness universal health care is coming and putting patients back on equal footing since they don’t have the lobbyists that insurers, physicians, and pharmaceuticals have.
“Thank goodness universal health care is coming and putting patients back on equal footing since they don’t have the lobbyists that insurers, physicians, and pharmaceuticals have.
You mean like the poor slob who saw docs in the British NHS system 37 times (see kevin’s link) and never got a simple CT scan that proablby would have dx his renal cell carcinoma. Well I “can’t wait” until that day comes along with universal care. Just hope you don’t get sick counsler if your wish comes to pass.
Is there no integrity left in the field of medicine?
First we have a demand for “special courts” and yet we have continued malfeasance:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-12-medical-journals_x.htm
Some people will argue with anything. Kevin says ‘I wish we could have a system that makes sure those involved in complicated trials understand the evidence so compensation can go to those who really deserve it instead of those who don’t” and we actually have people arguing that a system that strives to be less arbitrary and more fair is a bad thing.
It looks like all the oppositions posts were written by the same anonymous commenter.
The problem, Anonymous 4:39, is that all the evidence is that the current system’s results are far from arbitrary and are in fact very consistent and do quite a good job of making sure compensation goes to those who deserve and not those who don’t. Despite the alleged complexity.
The only thing health courts change is that insurance co. lobbyists will now have more influence and there will be damage caps.
Kevin, can we take your support of this bill to mean that you do in fact support damage caps?
Also, since you’ve repeatedly claimed that the current system is too expensive, can you explain how this proposal will make it cheaper and reduce administrative costs?
CJD
A good system
Well that’s debatable.
Something that someone else posted and had not air time:
Your writing posting pattern is easy to follow on this site.
Interesting you post over and over again yet never have anything constructive to say.
OK I’ll bite
1: Suits being required to go through a panel of docs/and non docs first. Make this with teeth, not the Mass. or fomer Arizona model where if you don’t like the result it get’s ignored. Do it in such a way that patient’s who may have had an injury that lawyer’s won’t take due to the money get a hearing.
2: Getting rid of the present “expert opinion” model and requiring instate docs of the same specialty review cases and give opinions. Possibly senior docs on the way to retirement whose practice is slowing down.
3: Requiring health insurance company’s explain significant increases in premiums.
4: Require the federal government to make available the present VA computor system model on a national basis to minimize errors.
Do it in such a way that patient records are protected and give the “death penalty” to those insurance company’s that mess with this protection.
5: Institute a system of sanction or loser pays for those lawyer’s who repeatedly bring cases without merit. Make sure sanctions are readily available to the public on state bar websites.
6: Conversly, make sure board certification, malpractice cases (number of), and punitive board actions of docs are also readily available to the public on state medical websites. Arizona has a good model for those interested.
We can add more I am sure. The sad thing is if you talk to docs, many are willing to come halfway for a better system for all. Unfortuantely as ATLA head showed, the bar will not take one step. Notice how I never mentioned malpractice caps or violation of the 7th amendment.
# posted by Anonymous : 7:35 PM
” The sad thing is if you talk to docs, many are willing to come halfway for a better system for all. Unfortuantely as ATLA head showed, the bar will not take one step.”
So far, no proposal whatsoever submitted by “reformers” to a legislature has not included damage caps. So I’m unsure how you figure that the docs have come “halfway”. I do like your proposals, though. They have real merit.
CJD
Thanks to a recent article in the WSJ, another “tort reform” talking point falls. First, the Studdert study got rid of the “juries are too dumb” argument. Now, the end of the “it doesn’t improve quality” claim is nigh:
See Wednesday’s article by Laura Landro in the WSJ discussing how lawsuits have led insurers and hospitals to work on improving the delivery of care. In much the same way anesthesiologists did 2 decades ago.
That leaves you with the cost. And so far, no one has made the case that these “health courts” will be any cheaper. And Kevin’s silly claim that there are too many frivolous claims being filed certainly won’t change if the barrier to filing claims is lowered. It will worsen.
So what are you left with – personal attacks on lawyers?
“First, the Studdert study got rid of the “juries are too dumb” argument. Now, the end of the “it doesn’t improve quality” claim is nigh”
Actually that is highly debatable. Listen to the primary author’s opinion. Please do tell how the present system improves quality of healthcare delivery?
Personally I thought anon above had some great ideas for EVERYBODY but again it gets ignored (besides CJD).
“Listen to the primary author’s opinion.”
OK: “”The bottom line from the study is that the malpractice system appears to be doing a reasonable job in two specific aspects of its performance: (1) it is not consistently or
predominantly attracting claims that are patently spurious; and (2) it is usually directing
compensation to meritorious claims and denying compensation to non-meritorious ones.”
That’s Dr. Studdert’s testimony.
As for how it is improving quality, read Wed. WSJ, first page article in the PERSONAL JOURNAL section. Discusses how insurers and hospitals are revising procedures in obstetrics to work to eliminate the most common sources of claims. Much like the anesthesiologists did. Sorry, can’t link the article for another few days.
Of course two can cherry pick:
This was the last line from Dr Studdard’s testimony
“Alternative approaches to compensating medical injury, such as the health court model,
have the potential to improve performance in each of these areas and provide patients in
the United States with a better system for compensating medical injuries.”
OMG he mentioned the stake to all lawyer/vampires “HEALTH COURTS”.
Also from the same testimony:
“In the mid-1990s, I
was part of a research group at the Harvard School of Public Health that investigated the
incidence of medical injury in Utah and Colorado. Findings from this work, together
with the group’s early work in New York, formed the basis of the Institute of Medicine’s
2000 report on medical error, To Err is Human.”
What he fails to say is that “research” was actually extrapolation of data from THE EARLY 1980’s. This has been pointed out by numerous scientist’s over the last several years but it doesn’t sound as sexy as banner headlines that say “100,000 PEOPLE DYING A YEAR DUE TO DOCTOR/HOSPITAL FUCKUPS”. So it get’s ignored. Now that’s good scientific method for you.
“
“Alternative approaches to compensating medical injury, such as the health court model,
have the potential to improve performance in each of these areas and provide patients in
the United States with a better system for compensating medical injuries.”
OMG he mentioned the stake to all lawyer/vampires “HEALTH COURTS”.”
He did not mention Common Good’s version of health courts, which are simply damage caps dressed up, at all. Read it again.
Comments on this entry are closed.