1) A reader writes: “What do you believe are the rights of a legitimate victim of medical malpractice who was misdiagnosed, had a procedure done that was done improperly, was unnecessary, and damaged them to the point that they will have permanent damage?”
My take: Victims of legitimate malpractice should be compensated. However, the system does a poor job of that. Not only does it take a significant amount of time to endure the malpractice process, more than half of the amount goes to administrative expenses such as paying the lawyers, courts and expert witnesses.
Physician advocacy aside, there is no doubt that the malpractice system treats victims of legitimate malpractice poorly.
A proposed solution would be a workers compensation-style, no-fault malpractice system that would pay legitimately injured patients more expediently.
2) “Age management” is the latest fad to hit mainstream medicine and is a $50 billion industry. And growing.
My take: Patients are enamored with the “preventive” aspects of this field:
“Regular doctors could not even come close. When I have gone to them they tell me I am crazy and should not even look at these things and that I should wait until I have a problem. But to me that is closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Most doctors are mechanics. They fix things. To me, prevention is the name of the game.”
Ironically, there is no evidence that taking supplements, hormones or undergoing extensive lab testing prevents anything, let alone aging.
The anti-aging movement is gaining momentum because it taps into several sources of frustration.
Physicians are drawn to it because of the paucity of insurance paperwork, the ability to spend time with patients, and being fairly compensated for their work.
Patients who believe that “more medicine and testing equate to better care” are getting their wishes fulfilled by willing doctors who prescribe scores of supplements and endless testing.
One note from this. It shows that patients are willing to pay for what they perceive as receiving appropriate preventive care as well as spending time with the physician.
Related posts:
- Fixing malpractice is a vital part of health reform
- Does telemedicine reduce malpractice risk?
- Laborists, and how rising malpractice premiums and the physician payment system are fueling the rise of hospital-only obstetricians
- Op-ed: Injured patients deserve medical malpractice reform
- PointofLaw.com takes apart Public Citizen’s critique of tort reform
- Care management consultants
- Arbitration is an answer
{ 5 comments }
One note from this. It shows that patients are willing to pay for what they perceive as receiving appropriate preventive care as well as spending time with the physician.
Or, it shows that patients are happy to pay for what they WANT, just not what they NEED.
I completely agree with you that the present malpractice system reeks. True victims turn over 1/3 or more of their reward to lawyers. And it takes years to settle a claim. Then, of course, payments are made for “pain and suffering,” “loss of consortium,” — stuff Europe does NOT do.
My proposal: get it out of the courts completely. Submit claims to an impartial board of experts. If the doc is wrong (yes – it does happen), determine damages appropriately, and pay them.
AND, if a doc is an idiot and often wrong, STRIP his license!
The workmen’s comp approach to medmal will explode 1) payouts, 2) gaming by patients with trivial injuries not the fault of providers, 3) defensive medicine, 4) lawyer incomes. Really, really bad idea.
In england lawyers have to pay when they file a fivrolous law suit.We should do the same thing in the USA.
1. In NH, about three quarters of all malpractice payments go to lawyers, for defense and plaintiffs. Way over one third. Counting expenses way over half goes to the plaintiff’s lawyer. No where near a third.
2. Damages should be determined by schedule ex ante, by a legislature for minimums, and by the patient when he signs up for insurance. The level of payment for bad outcomes and the premium for this additional insurance to be decided by and born the patient, respectively.
3. Medical harm to be determined by a jury of same specialty doctors impartially chosen by the court and specialty boards. Full results to be presented should the verdict be appealled to the courts.
4. The main problem with the system is badly decided cases:
Teen suicide in Franklin, NH. 300 aspirins. ER doc on the phone with DHMC. $2.1 M verdict.
Almost every bad baby case.
Man in Concord, NH rolls his truck. Thrown 150 feet. Seat belt? Not admissible. Multiple injuries. Recovers but blind. Surgeon on the hook for 2 million. Should have transfused more. Huh?
Comments on this entry are closed.