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.

“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.

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.

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).

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?

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

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

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

The only thing health courts change is that insurance co. lobbyists will now have more influence and there will be damage caps.