Lawyers who worked for large firms doing mostly corporate work? Yes. Prosecutors? Yes, lots of them too. Representing people injured by the negligence of others? Name me one lawyer currently in Congress who made his/her living in that practice.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/06/25/mri-ctreport.html

Are you suggesting that the reform we need is UK/Canada style healthcare? If not, then what is your point?

Perhaps the biggest question about defensive medicine, assuming its existence, is does it work? If you don’t know, then why would you do it?

The anonymous lawyer trolls have descended on this thread in droves, so it is probably pointless to battle. But let us pretend you are honestly curious for a moment about whether defensive medicine is real.

You are a person who falls and bumps your head. You go to the emergency room. You are several times likelier to receive a CT scan in the US versus the UK or Canada (this is not in dispute). The ER physician receives no financial incentive to order scans; in fact, they only slow him down and force him to see fewer patients. So why (because defensive medicine is just a myth) are they ordering them so much more here than in less lawsuit happy countries?

Wrong! It can always get worse.

I do peer review in a state with one of the highest utilzation rates of medical services and also one of the highest rates of malpractice suits. One would think, from all that is seen here that the relationship is defensive medicine.

I don’t see that. The relationship is a lot of sloppy, thoughtless, and sometimes greed-driven care results in lost of charges generated with little to show for it but adverse consequences of care.

When this care is identified in peer review, rarely is action taken if the culprit generates profit.

The core problem is lack of personal standards and courage.

As to the Obama offering “tort reform” as part of his “healthcare reform” it is important to note that the Massachusetts system is his model!

“While we continue to support caps on non-economic damages as a proven reform working in California and Texas to keep physicians in practice and preserve patients’ day in court”

How many posts have we seen on this and other physician sites about how crappy it is to practice in California? And how exactly does having insurance and apparently AMA lobbyists decide the value of cases without hearing evidence “preserve patients’ day in court”? Only a lobbyist can make those kind of statements with a straight face.

Using his logic, and his belief that it is imperative to cut health care costs, a straightforward and direct way with immediate and quantifiable cost savings would be to cut Medicaid reimbursements. We can probably determine right down to the penny what the savings will be! I’m sure a physician can bear the cost better than an injured patient who will never be able to work again as a result of malpractice.

Also note that Mr. Heyman, your biggest lobbying organization’s board chair, is referring to the health care “system”. It’s not patients purchasing goods and services from professionals. It’s a “system”. That view of healthcare is what put you in the position of being at the financial mercy of the federal govt. Continuing down that “system” road is going to make you full time employees of the Department of Health and Human Services. It doesn’t sound like the AMA will be doing much to reform your payment model anytime soon. And that is the true root of the problem for healthcare professionals.

But by all means, put out the fire in the grass while your home burns.