Comments on: An apology bill is debated in Nevada http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:39:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72980 Anonymous Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:53:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72980 "Incentivize communication"-are you kidding? We are going to pay docs more for talking with their patients and being honest? What is this profession coming to? <br/><br/>An apology bill should not be implemented to get physicians off the hook and give them legalized immunity when an error was made and they decide to apologize. This legislation should be in the patient's best interest who has experienced the adverse event. “Incentivize communication”-are you kidding? We are going to pay docs more for talking with their patients and being honest? What is this profession coming to?

An apology bill should not be implemented to get physicians off the hook and give them legalized immunity when an error was made and they decide to apologize. This legislation should be in the patient’s best interest who has experienced the adverse event.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72955 Anonymous Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:38:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72955 Anon 2:24, the answer is because they don't get paid to do so. Incentivize communication, and you will get more of it. Anon 2:24, the answer is because they don’t get paid to do so. Incentivize communication, and you will get more of it.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72953 Anonymous Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:26:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72953 1. because not everyone wants that same information<br/>2. different persons have different interpretations of "chance"<br/>3. patients dont show up tagged in the forehead: "i am the type who likes to know my chances" or "i am the type who wants you to tell me what to do, because i cannot depend on myself to make choices"<br/>4. a host of other reasons that are too hard to discuss in limited time frames in consideration of the other waiting patients 1. because not everyone wants that same information
2. different persons have different interpretations of “chance”
3. patients dont show up tagged in the forehead: “i am the type who likes to know my chances” or “i am the type who wants you to tell me what to do, because i cannot depend on myself to make choices”
4. a host of other reasons that are too hard to discuss in limited time frames in consideration of the other waiting patients

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72937 Anonymous Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:24:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72937 Then why don't they? Then why don’t they?

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72936 Anonymous Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:56:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72936 Doctors can communicate the things you describe now. Doctors can communicate the things you describe now.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72931 Anonymous Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:07:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72931 I think it could. Especially if doctors were to spell out the probability of the patient's having a desease and the risks of a specific test. How much time does it take to do to say "the chance you have desease X is ...", if I do this CT, there is this chance of your getting cancer n years from now" or "n% of people who get this test get a false positive result, the test to evaluate false positives have x% probability of ...". The whole of 2 minutes? I am sure many people wouldn't want to have a test to rule out something they have 1/1000 chance of having if the chance of something bad happening as the result is comparable. So yes, I think communication can reduce unnecessary testing. I think it could. Especially if doctors were to spell out the probability of the patient’s having a desease and the risks of a specific test. How much time does it take to do to say “the chance you have desease X is …”, if I do this CT, there is this chance of your getting cancer n years from now” or “n% of people who get this test get a false positive result, the test to evaluate false positives have x% probability of …”. The whole of 2 minutes? I am sure many people wouldn’t want to have a test to rule out something they have 1/1000 chance of having if the chance of something bad happening as the result is comparable. So yes, I think communication can reduce unnecessary testing.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/03/apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72923 Anonymous Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:54:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/03/an-apology-bill-is-debated-in-nevada.html#comment-72923 Can improved communication reduce defensive medicine? No. To the extent it exists, and none of us know that, it is a reflection of irrational physician fears.<br/><br/>And, given that physicians aren't compensated for increased communication, they are not going to do it. Can improved communication reduce defensive medicine? No. To the extent it exists, and none of us know that, it is a reflection of irrational physician fears.

And, given that physicians aren’t compensated for increased communication, they are not going to do it.

]]>