Comments on: Lawyers win again, patients lose http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79167 Anonymous Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:02:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79167 If you could not refer your patients to the hospital, how would they get that care? And if they couldn't, wouldn't they simply go to a physician who does have that access? Thus, the economics of your situation dictate that you do that - ie., you make money as a result.<br/><br/>And more on point, again, why should the public allow you not to pay for the harm you cause because you work in the ER? If you could not refer your patients to the hospital, how would they get that care? And if they couldn’t, wouldn’t they simply go to a physician who does have that access? Thus, the economics of your situation dictate that you do that – ie., you make money as a result.

And more on point, again, why should the public allow you not to pay for the harm you cause because you work in the ER?

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79165 Anonymous Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:32:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79165 CJD<br/>Do you even know what the meaning of a strawman? Because it sure does not sem like it. You clearly have no understanding of my business. Let me be clear. I do not take ER call to make money. I take ER call to give my pt's access to a hospital when they need it for medical, let me repeat for you MEDICAL REASONS. I lose money going to the hospital that I could be making in the clinic. But that is what is best for the patients. A requirement of most hospitals (unless hospitalists run the show) is that to admit you must take ER call. Do you even have a basic rudimentary understanding of medicine and it's business aspects? Because from this vantage point you don't. CJD
Do you even know what the meaning of a strawman? Because it sure does not sem like it. You clearly have no understanding of my business. Let me be clear. I do not take ER call to make money. I take ER call to give my pt’s access to a hospital when they need it for medical, let me repeat for you MEDICAL REASONS. I lose money going to the hospital that I could be making in the clinic. But that is what is best for the patients. A requirement of most hospitals (unless hospitalists run the show) is that to admit you must take ER call. Do you even have a basic rudimentary understanding of medicine and it’s business aspects? Because from this vantage point you don’t.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79164 Anonymous Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:35:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79164 "It has nothing to do with money, it is about having a place to admit and see your pt's when they need of hospitalization. It is about having a place to do surgery. To have the priv, the hospital requires all doctor's be in the call pool. Very simply if you do not have admitting priv if you are not in the call pool. "<br/><br/>It has nothing to do with money? Do you have even a basic grasp of the economics of your business? If you can't do surgery, you can't make money. If you can't admit and see your patients, they become someone else's patients and you can't make money from them. You agree to do the ER because that's what the hospitals requires in order to allow you to use their facilities. It's the tradeoff that allows both of you to profit. It's called a contract, and you signed it. Please tell me you're not one of these physicians clamoring for the "free market". You'd starve in a month.<br/><br/>I'm sorry you're so bereft of intelligent thought that you have to make up a strawman to converse with. Best of luck with that. “It has nothing to do with money, it is about having a place to admit and see your pt’s when they need of hospitalization. It is about having a place to do surgery. To have the priv, the hospital requires all doctor’s be in the call pool. Very simply if you do not have admitting priv if you are not in the call pool. “

It has nothing to do with money? Do you have even a basic grasp of the economics of your business? If you can’t do surgery, you can’t make money. If you can’t admit and see your patients, they become someone else’s patients and you can’t make money from them. You agree to do the ER because that’s what the hospitals requires in order to allow you to use their facilities. It’s the tradeoff that allows both of you to profit. It’s called a contract, and you signed it. Please tell me you’re not one of these physicians clamoring for the “free market”. You’d starve in a month.

I’m sorry you’re so bereft of intelligent thought that you have to make up a strawman to converse with. Best of luck with that.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79161 Anonymous Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:12:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79161 CJD:<br/>You clearly have no understanding of ER call and why it is taken. It has nothing to do with money, it is about having a place to admit and see your pt's when they need of hospitalization. It is about having a place to do surgery. To have the priv, the hospital requires all doctor's be in the call pool. Very simply if you do not have admitting priv if you are not in the call pool. Again, what is clear to me is that you are shooting off at the hip without understanding the situation. <br/><br/>PS: I have no interest in "wasting the time" of a mid-level government bureaucrat who happens to have a JD and has nothing better to do than to play on blogs all day...no need to respond with pointless sound bites CJD:
You clearly have no understanding of ER call and why it is taken. It has nothing to do with money, it is about having a place to admit and see your pt’s when they need of hospitalization. It is about having a place to do surgery. To have the priv, the hospital requires all doctor’s be in the call pool. Very simply if you do not have admitting priv if you are not in the call pool. Again, what is clear to me is that you are shooting off at the hip without understanding the situation.

PS: I have no interest in “wasting the time” of a mid-level government bureaucrat who happens to have a JD and has nothing better to do than to play on blogs all day…no need to respond with pointless sound bites

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79160 Anonymous Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:29:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79160 Either way, you're not expecting to do it for free. And obviously you make enough money off the privileges that you're willing to take what the other side requires of you to get those privileges. If you weren't you wouldn't sign the contract.<br/><br/>You do understand that most contracts you sign have a benefit to both sides, right?<br/><br/>Back to the point, what does your apparently bad contract with your hospital have to do with you getting reduced liability because you signed something you wish you hadn't? Until you figure that out, your wasting both our time. Either way, you’re not expecting to do it for free. And obviously you make enough money off the privileges that you’re willing to take what the other side requires of you to get those privileges. If you weren’t you wouldn’t sign the contract.

You do understand that most contracts you sign have a benefit to both sides, right?

Back to the point, what does your apparently bad contract with your hospital have to do with you getting reduced liability because you signed something you wish you hadn’t? Until you figure that out, your wasting both our time.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79147 Anonymous Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:01:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79147 Anon 3:03 (ie CJD) <br/><br/>re: That's a dispute you have with the person you entered into the reimbursement contract...<br/><br/>You really have no understanding how ER call works do you? Taking ER call has nothing to do with insurance companies, reimbursement contracts or anything else regarding the payer. It has everything to do with hospital priv. Look it up and get back to me, then we can have a meaningful discussion about the subject. Otherwise don't waste my time when you have no clue what you are talking about. Anon 3:03 (ie CJD)

re: That’s a dispute you have with the person you entered into the reimbursement contract…

You really have no understanding how ER call works do you? Taking ER call has nothing to do with insurance companies, reimbursement contracts or anything else regarding the payer. It has everything to do with hospital priv. Look it up and get back to me, then we can have a meaningful discussion about the subject. Otherwise don’t waste my time when you have no clue what you are talking about.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79125 Anonymous Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:03:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79125 " However, when I am on the ER call schedule for self pays (which often means no pay), when medicare/medicaid/insurance denies my bill for the reason de jour, etc then I am de facto giving free care that comes out of my pocket. "<br/><br/>That's a dispute you have with the person you entered into the reimbursement contract with. In fact, about a million of you sued those health insurers for that very reason. You didn't intend for that work to be free. Anymore than the lawyer who is stiffed by a client directly intended for his work to be free. Or the subcontractor whose general files bankruptcy. <br/><br/>"PS: The lawyers would tolerate this type of system in their profession for about two seconds. "<br/><br/>So why do you? Why do you re-sign contracts with payers who repeatedly stiff you?<br/><br/>The sub is still legally responsible for the quality of their work. The lawyer's malpractice exposure isn't limited just because the client stiffed them. Should they all receive limited liability for the harm their negligence causes as a result? <br/><br/>Did you think physicians were unique in that sense? ” However, when I am on the ER call schedule for self pays (which often means no pay), when medicare/medicaid/insurance denies my bill for the reason de jour, etc then I am de facto giving free care that comes out of my pocket. “

That’s a dispute you have with the person you entered into the reimbursement contract with. In fact, about a million of you sued those health insurers for that very reason. You didn’t intend for that work to be free. Anymore than the lawyer who is stiffed by a client directly intended for his work to be free. Or the subcontractor whose general files bankruptcy.

“PS: The lawyers would tolerate this type of system in their profession for about two seconds. “

So why do you? Why do you re-sign contracts with payers who repeatedly stiff you?

The sub is still legally responsible for the quality of their work. The lawyer’s malpractice exposure isn’t limited just because the client stiffed them. Should they all receive limited liability for the harm their negligence causes as a result?

Did you think physicians were unique in that sense?

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79116 Anonymous Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:06:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79116 No one said volunteering to help others is nothing special - it's very important. The point was simply that if that's the standard for not having to pay for the harm caused by your negligence, why should it be limited to physicians?<br/><br/>As for the "ridiculously high standard", what are you talking about? TV and lawyers don't get to choose the standard of care, just other physicians. No one said volunteering to help others is nothing special – it’s very important. The point was simply that if that’s the standard for not having to pay for the harm caused by your negligence, why should it be limited to physicians?

As for the “ridiculously high standard”, what are you talking about? TV and lawyers don’t get to choose the standard of care, just other physicians.

]]> By: Mikehttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79112 Mike Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:24:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79112 Anon 9:24, exactly what the above physician syas.<br/><br/>Instead of doing volunteer work out of the office, why dont you do a bunch of free crap IN your office. Its nothing special, right? (as you say of physicians).<br/><br/>And "harm" is not always avoidable or forseeable, even by the best doctors. So if the best can't get it right all the time, then why the ridiculously high standard? And please don't say "doctors created them". Truth is, lawyers and television created them. Anon 9:24, exactly what the above physician syas.

Instead of doing volunteer work out of the office, why dont you do a bunch of free crap IN your office. Its nothing special, right? (as you say of physicians).

And “harm” is not always avoidable or forseeable, even by the best doctors. So if the best can’t get it right all the time, then why the ridiculously high standard? And please don’t say “doctors created them”. Truth is, lawyers and television created them.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79109 Anonymous Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:04:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/08/lawyers-win-again-patients-lose.html#comment-79109 Anon 09:24<br/><br/>"Physicians do so much free work, extra work, unreimbursed work."<br/><br/>And? Lots of people do volunteer work. Should anyone who does X amount of hours of volunteer work not have to pay for the harm they cause?<br/><br/>The difference should be obvious to you. If I choose to do free work/volunteer my time. That is my choice/my right (which by the way I do at a low income clinic). However, when I am on the ER call schedule for self pays (which often means no pay), when medicare/medicaid/insurance denies my bill for the reason de jour, etc then I am de facto giving free care that comes out of my pocket. Additionally, though I recieve no payment, I am still legally responsible This is not "volunteer" work, this is a system that decides after work has been given to deny payment. Essentially a form of indentured servitude to the government/society. You choose to volunteer correct? Choice has nothing to do with it for us. Please do understand the difference. <br/>PS: The lawyers would tolerate this type of system in their profession for about two seconds. Anon 09:24

“Physicians do so much free work, extra work, unreimbursed work.”

And? Lots of people do volunteer work. Should anyone who does X amount of hours of volunteer work not have to pay for the harm they cause?

The difference should be obvious to you. If I choose to do free work/volunteer my time. That is my choice/my right (which by the way I do at a low income clinic). However, when I am on the ER call schedule for self pays (which often means no pay), when medicare/medicaid/insurance denies my bill for the reason de jour, etc then I am de facto giving free care that comes out of my pocket. Additionally, though I recieve no payment, I am still legally responsible This is not “volunteer” work, this is a system that decides after work has been given to deny payment. Essentially a form of indentured servitude to the government/society. You choose to volunteer correct? Choice has nothing to do with it for us. Please do understand the difference.
PS: The lawyers would tolerate this type of system in their profession for about two seconds.

]]>