We’re fans of the British professional liability system. Across the Pond, the loser pays the legal fees of the winner. Not surprisingly, there, medical malpractice cases are screened more diligently before going forward. The cost of getting it wrong is stiff.
So, what happened to the convicted Lockerbie bomber? His tale has nothing to do with medical malpractice, but everything to do with how “experts” can control the outcome of a legal case.
Any health care professional will tell you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This holds true for the many ills of medical and dental malpractice suits as well. The time to get insurance is BEFORE you’re sued, just as the time to get preventative medicine is before you get sick. Most health care professionals know this. Most wouldn’t dream of being without medical malpractice insurance. Most would do anything they could to reduce the risk of being sued, if only they knew what else to do. Read on for the magic bullet.
Medical Justice will offer NJSPS members preferred price discounts on its full membership, (encompassing all products and services,) based on NJSPS Member participation.
The Demise of the General Practitioner Is Caused by Frivolous Medical Malpractice Suits & Defensive Medicine.
It seems that two opposites are drawing down. On one hand, we have the physicians, struggling to be able to continue to heal for a living. On the other, we have the insurance companies and politicians wrangling and writing about, under increasing heat to make health care something like sanely affordable for people to be healthy, yet looking to cut corners at every turn. The government (which theoretically should be We The People) seems dead set on including physicians’ reimbursements as part of those “cut corners”. It’s hard to fathom how all of these groups expect a doctor to accept a reduction on a rate that is already obscenely below standard; already at or below the cost of providing services in the first place. Then we have the patients, themselves struggling with systems that seem unnecessarily complex and uncaring, yet needing the services that only a doctor can provide. And those healers themselves? They’re the ones caught in the middle.
It is said that the best defense is a good offense. While this axiom of warriors may not be the first inclination of gentile healers, the trial lawyers and other opportunists have made a good offense a necessary part of survival in the medical profession. The proactive approach is foundational to mitigating risks in this litigious time and society. In short, you’ve got to be a step or two ahead of the greedy few to keep them at bay. And taking steps to prevent the case from ever being filed in the first place is the best way to avoid the disruption of your practice, as well as the risks and other expenses inherent in a medical malpractice suit, no matter how frivolous it may be. Since 95% of all doctors will probably be sued for malpractice at some time in their career, it’s a wise move to ensure that you minimize the impact of that suit.
Hindsight may very well be 20:20. That fact is at the core of a study that presents very persuasive data to show that the use of Expert Testimony is inherently flawed. The study, which appears in the August issue of the American Journal of Roentgenology, demonstrates that knowing the outcome of the case makes it all too easy for these paid Experts to opine that statement which endorses what the plaintiff’s attorney wants that witness to say. But the study shows that at least 30 of 31 experts’ opinions would have been exactly the same as the doctor being sued — if only they were blind to the outcome at the time.
“The proof is in the pudding” is proving to be more than just a convenient expression when it comes to heathcare reform. When we entered the current administration’s tenure, many were hopeful that the changes to come would be good, productive improvements. So far, though, it’s not looking good for the Gipper. The new “reform” package continues to stumble about blindly, amidst considerably challenges that suggest the entire thing may be scrapped as unConstitutional. Even status quo aspects like paying physicians a reduced fee for their services to Medicare and Medicaid patients are no longer maintained. The promise to those people who have paid into the program is not being kept. As of a couple months ago, the recurring extensions of funding stopped, leaving physicians high and dry and lacking 21% of what was already a substandard sum. This is causing Access To Care problems, and is nearly certain to get worse. When the American people voted in this President and accompanying Congress, it’s certain that they did so expecting functional solutions. So far, though, the Pudding is quite thin, at least a bit sour, and doesn’t begin to satisfy the needs of the people it was supposed to assist.
The American Medical Association released a report surveying over 5,000 doctors between 2007 and 2008. The result: An average of 95 claims were filed for every 100 physicians. That’s an average of almost one per physicians. Just under 50 percent were sued at some point in their career. 20% were sued two or more times.
And the doctor’s specialty determined the career suit rate:
A great post from our friend MD Whistleblower Tort Reform and the Rain Forest; Lawyers’ Advice Needed Hate to see the rebuttal witnesses!!
The U.S. Senate passed a six-month extension of Medicaid funding by a vote of 61-38. That’s the good news. But the picture is anything but rosy, and there are no clear skies ahead. This result is only a progression towards funding approval – and that was only possible because Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe joined with all the Democrats to provide the minimum 60 votes necessary. Did that pass the bill in Senate? Nope. That’s just what it takes to move it to the Debate stage.
What exactly is being debated? Well, first off, the bill isn’t all about Medicaid. Education and other aspects are also bundled in. The complexity of the legislation seems to be part of the hold-up. Senate’s current form of proposed legislation would taper off the Federal involvement in supporting the states, which currently includes a 6.2% bonus to the state governments. This bill proposes cutting that to 3.2% during the first quarter of 2011, and then drop it by 1.2% more in June of 2011* (see Update at the end of this piece).
