That would cut health care costs in half, at a minimum, with improved health stats.

All social problems, all social pathologies, all policy dysfunctions have a rent seeking, land pirate, lawyer making money as a cause.

If people don’t like their health care costs double what they should be, thank the land pirates.

In 90% of cases, they are used as a spear against the doctor, and not as a shield.

Usually, they are garbage science. They change every 2 or 3 years. So we know they are wrong, per se. Defendant doctors should review with their personal attorney (not the insurance defense lawyer) the possible filing of cross claims against the relevant guideline makers as individuals, their employers, and any professional association that peddled anti-scientific garbage. To deter.

Anonymous lawyer, you land pirates drive health care costs through the roof, then blame doctors for complying with case law.

Why not review Rule of Conduct 8.4 (c), the scope of the Rules in their preamble? Then tell us your real name and Bar number.

But two questions – if that’s the case, that we’re all so different that you can’t have an ordinary standard of care for certain presentations, then how can you complain when the plaintiff’s expert disagrees with your own expert?

Second, while there are undoubtedly some issues which arise that defy uniform standards, surely the vast majority are not that way. If reducing litigation is the key, why not find the commonalities in most claims and promulgate a standard for those?

As for writing legal briefs, I invite you to try if you think it will be so easy. I’ve got an appeal I’d love to not have to delve into on some rather complex issues. What will you charge for such an easy thing?

To a certain extent it is happening. Look at guidelines from any national organization. They are easily available. Google your disease de jour and see what comes up. The bigger issue however is that in many disease states/processes their is no set right answer (ie there are many way’s to skin a cat). In other processes there is controversy as to what is the right answer to treatment. Neither issue exactly facilitates towards easy national standardization now does it CJD? It is easy to talk about “national standards” in the hypothetical, it is much different to institute them. Human biology is a little more complicated than legal briefs and frankly we don’t know all the answers/science.

Why do you believe it’s not happening?

CJD

Thanks,
Kevin

If physicians want the standard of care to be X in the situation he/she presents, they need only promulgate a national standard. However, whenever that is suggested, they all run from it with various excuses.

If you don’t like “bottom of the barrel” physicians, tell the public who they are and they’ll quickly be out of business. Or better yet, educate them yourselves – they’re reflecting on YOUR profession.

If you want to end defensive medicine, create national standards of care. Although I think you’ll find when you do, that nothing much will change because “defensive medicine” has other motives. As it stands, though, I doubt it changes, because physicians really aren’t inclined to do much about it but blame everyone but themselves.

CJD

The beauty of the scheme the lawyers have set up is that when a few (usually bottom of the barrel) physicians start doing this, it exerts a pressure effect on the others – it’s very easy to call someone negligent for not ordering a test when you can point out other people who would have ordered the test. Then the herds move over to ordering the test to cover their asses, and it becomes malpractice to not order the test, even if it’s stupid. Welcome to American medicine.

Word of mouth spreads like wildfires. You make enough of us lose respect for you, and it can end up hurting you!

Besides, what is your plan when the insurance companies start screaming ins. fraud?