And people take that kind of risk all the time. Larger in fact.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But does anyone really believe that the physician in question has actually studied med mal verdicts (and more importantly actual payouts) in both jurisdictions, rates of returns of the insurers, etc. to reach the conclusions he’s stating?

Watchout change is coming…

But in the end this is good. The market needs to make the correction here. If liability exposure with the premiums associated are high and the reimbursement from the patient population low then docs should pick up and leave. The capitalist model allows all needs to be met. One merely has to pay market price for what is wanted.

Obviously the number of american radiologists who pursue this path is very, very small. 99% of american radiologists choose to work, guess where, in the USA

So the nighthawk model is not a true outsourcing threat because only americans living abroad do the images.

ABR rules strictly state that images taken in the states must be read by a radiologist licensed in the states. So that eliminates all the Indian rads docs.

Until the ABR rules are changed, outsourcing is not an issue. Nighthawk is not true outsourcing IMHO

Nighthawk anyone? Believe me the rads lobby will fight this one tooth and nail but eventually we will have CTs read more frequently by overseas radiologists likely under the guidance of a US trained radiologist. It is already happening.

Which is why the reasoning matters. I think we can all agree that if in fact the market needs more radiologists, then we should figure out how to attract them. But that should be based on an accurate analysis of the reasons they aren’t there.

I absolutely agree. But ignoring the FACT that they are leaving because their reasoning may be incorrect is not helpful to anyone. If the prerequisite to a serious discussion/debate on the issues is agreement on the issues, than there is no point.

Those that write here that Doctors don’t know what they are talking about, and Doctors who write that lawyers, consumers, etc don’t know what they are talking about, all keep falling into the same trap.

Both sides of the debate are highly polarized. They both believe that their view is the correct position, to the extent that anyone who disagrees must be either ignorant or crazy, and therefore anything they have to say on the matter is suspect.

This post is a case-in-point. The doctors are leaving. They say because of the malpractice climate, etc. You argue that their premise is incorrect, or someone implies that Kevin chose the article because he feels a certain way, or in some way someone distracts from the point because the premise in incorrect. And the post is dismissed, or a dismissive comment is made (a la Anon 10:10).

Unfortunately, though, the fact that they are leaving is not theory or belief, it IS fact. One that is ignored (by posters like Anon 10:10) because the premise of their resoning is believed to be faulty. But it is not found faulty because anyone has discussed or debated the issue, but because they are doctors, and though the article doesn’t state that they fully investigated the issues around their decision, it doesn’t say that they didn’t. But they’re Doctor’s, and therefore their conclusions are suspect.

The opposite claim could be made, too; the Doctors are not immune to this behavior. Until people with differing views on this issue can respect the views of the other, even when there is disagreement, there can be no productive debate. Of course, those hospiltals are still without radiologists.

Rich