Ted Frank: “Malpractice litigation does change doctors’ incentives, but only with respect to short-term results. Because doctors won’t be sued for long-term consequences of defensive medicine, there is a substantial risk of overexposure to radiation in the course of defensive CT scans “” a problem identified in a study in the latest issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, finding that standard trauma treatment “” 1005 chest X-ray equivalents “” results in an additional 322 cases of cancer per 100,000 treated because of use of CT scans.”
Related posts:
- Defensive medicine wastes money and hurts patients
- Defensive medicine becoming standard of care?
- Defensive medicine op-ed reaction
- Reasons why doctors practice defensive medicine
- Why do doctors practice defensive medicine?
- Some lawyers say defensive medicine isn’t real, but this doctor shows us otherwise
- More tests does not mean better medicine
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 13 comments }
We regularly get guys up from the States to practice with us in Canada and the change in defensive medicine is a real change for them. We’ve often talked about not only long term consequences but the cost of our time as well. How much more is our malpractice really costing us in time?
As Warren Buffett predicts a couple of tough years for the liability/casualty insurance industry, on cue comes Ted Frank to start the “crisis” call again. Looking forward to the latest AMA map and some white coats on state capitols!
Away we go!
The impact of radiation is something that most patients (and docs) don’t think about.
Defensive medicine aside, since these studies have come out, I’ve been more vocal with patients regarding the full risks of them getting unnecessary testing (which they may perceive to be necessary).
I never stopped the crisis call. It matters not if my premium is affordable if I get hit with a judgment that’s orders of magnitude higher than your insurance limits. Orders of magnitude higher than any limits you would even dream of having. That there’s more noise when premium rises acutely does not alter the fundamental problems with medical liability.
“That there’s more noise when premium rises acutely does not alter the fundamental problems with medical liability.”
So we should cap all damages, compensatory and non-compensatory, for all injuries caused by any action, at a level the negligent party can afford to deal with your problem?
Nope. Cap noneconomic damages. No cap on economic damages.
How does that solve your perceived problem? A case with massive noneconomics is likely to have large economics as well.
The same way it solved problems in California, Indiana, Texas, and a bunch of other states. It’s the difference between “large” and “massive”.
What problems did it solve? Lower insurance rates? They went down in all states when the economy improved.
Cheaper health care? No.
Do you know the ratio between economic and noneconomic damages in verdicts that exceed $1M? If you don’t, then how can you have any clue what will solve your “problem” of having to pay for harm caused by your negligence?
>>Do you know the ratio between economic and noneconomic damages in verdicts that exceed $1M?
Ah, yes I do, actually. Do you? We’ve seen the results, in California, Texas, Indiana. Contrary to your lies, my insurance in my non-reformed state went up, while nearby non-tort-reformed states went down. Saw it with my own eyes. Same economy.
Saw availability go up in Texas. I see the Bar is trying to get their gravy train back in that state, with still more litigation. One would have though a constitutional amendment would be enough, but I do have to admire your creativity in finding a way to get the jackpot.
“Ah, yes I do, actually. Do you?”
No, what is it?\
“We’ve seen the results, in California, Texas, Indiana. Contrary to your lies, my insurance in my non-reformed state went up, while nearby non-tort-reformed states went down.”
What state is that? In Texas, rates nearly doubled, then went back 15%. Since the cases subject to “reform” wouldn’t have been paid on yet, that suggests that the amount set aside for reserves was way too high. Tennessee, a noncapped state, also dropped. Arkansas, a state that only caps punitive (which are rarely if ever a factor in med mal) saw declines. But no one can say how much payouts declined, for some reason. Why do you think we can’t get those stats?
Insurance rates fluctuate with the economy. Insurers are getting ready to go through some lean times in terms of profitability – enjoy the next “crisis”.
“Saw availability go up in Texas. “
No you didn’t, the rate of growth of physicians is behind the rate of population growth. What you saw was a bunch of new hospitals come online in ‘05 and ‘06 and thus new jobs. Please, spare me the chuckle of the “doctors are disappearing” claims. You guys use that to justify everything.
Still denying Texas, aren’t you? Really sticks in your craw to see that tort reform works. As usual CJD, you will always have other ambulances to chase.
What’s to deny in Texas? The facts, of which you appear to be only remotely acquainted with? They’re pretty straightforward – the growth of doctors lags behind the population growth.
I know economics aren’t most physician’s bailiwick, but more people generally means more work for physicians, regardless of anything else.
It’s a tough concept, but study on it and I bet you’ll get it.
Comments on this entry are closed.