Patients still trust their doctors, despite what you may read in the newspapers and blogs.
Bob Doherty points to a recent survey, showing broad public support for comparative effectiveness research, indicating that voters “trust their doctors and consistently support changes to help their doctors do their jobs.”
Mr. Doherty interprets the findings to mean that organizations like his, namely, the American College of Physicians, still has significant influence on the debate.
I certainly hope so.
Shifting gears, it’s been awhile since I posted anything on malpractice, and I almost forgot what a firestorm it brings whenever the subject is broached. People are so entrenched on either side of the debate, it is unlikely that any data presented will sway anyone’s opinion on the matter.
Duncan Cross, however, responded on this blog with an interesting take. Even while agreeing with me that the current malpractice system treats injured patients poorly, he says, “Trial lawyers may be working from craven self-interest, but that self-interest is better aligned with patients’ interests on this issue . . . the malpractice system is a pretty lousy way to compensate patients for medical errors. But so far, it’s the only system, and the physician-approved legislative solutions are no better.”
The interest of trial lawyers are better aligned with patients’ interests than physicians?
I wonder if he really believes that, or if that’s his progressive ideology which inherently opposes the medical profession talking.
In any case, we’ll agree to disagree on that point. But why would some patients want to cling to the status quo, rather than to even explore, say, a no-fault malpractice system that has been shown in other countries to compensate patients much more quickly than we do here?
{ 4 comments }
let’s see, if we were to switch to a no-fault system:
pros: patients would be awarded damages more promptly and probably more often overall, malpractice insurance would go down for doctors, not to mention eliminating the years of agony dealing with these cases for both sides
cons: no more $50 million awards for “pain and suffering,” less money for lawyers
hmm… very easy for lawyers to claim they are looking out for the patients’ best interests and doctors aren’t when you have this staring you in the face
Kevin,
While you can take solace in your alleged support of no-fault all you’d like, currently there is no legislative proposal for that. The “physician approved legislative proposals” to date consist of hurdles to filing a case, regardless of legitimacy, and having insurance lobbyists arbitrarily decide the value of a case, regardless of merit or the damages involved. Not sure how you think that aligns you with the patients more than the lawyers who actually help those injured when physicians and their insurers stonewall.
As for $50 million pain and suffering awards in med mal, can anyone point to a single one? What case was this?
As for “craven self interest”, given that physicians support of current legislative proposals are based on their desire to pay less in insurance, I’m not sure how they are less guilty than the lawyers for the injured of following their self interest.
well at least you’re not denying the part about lawyers’ self interest.
Anyone who gets paid doing something has a self interest in that thing, don’t you think?
Comments on this entry are closed.