Healthcare Reform - Medical Justice

Some Hidden Gems in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

August 15, 2024October 18, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Given the wordiness of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is no surprise that some surprises lurk deep within. A few selected pearls: Providers must return any Medicare overpayment within 60 days after identifying such an overpayment. An overpayment not returned during the 60 day period can be deemed a violation of the … Read more

Win the Battle; Lose the War

August 15, 2024October 12, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

We heard of a doctor who performed a routine injection on his patient. No written consent. Should have been plain-vanilla and without consequence. Until he dropped her lung. The patient was sent to the ER, had a chest tube placed, and was out of the hospital in a couple of days. The doctor never visited … Read more

The Most Outrageous HIPAA Release – from Angie’s List

August 15, 2024October 12, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Most of you know Angie’s List as a consumer rating site. They launched as a web portal, rating assorted service providers such as roofers and plumbers. Believing that the practice of medicine is little different than roofing and plumbing, they dipped a toe into rating doctors.

One of our beefs with their system is that doctors are foreclosed from responding to outrageous posts. The reason: federal and state privacy laws. Whereas roofers and plumbers can tell their side of the story, doctors cannot.

Angie’s List has doubled down by offering a service to resolve complaints patients may have with their doctors. This is where the most outrageous HIPAA Release emerges. In an effort “to be fair,” Angie’s List appears to require the full medical record to make its determination. Do you think they have experts from the specialty in question deliberating over the material?

Dr. Jeff Segal published in “Health Reform Report”

August 15, 2024September 25, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Dr. Segal’s article, “Doctor-to-Doctor: The Administration Promises “Budget Dust” To Fix Medical Malpractice Morass” was just published by the Center for Health Transformation’s Health Reform Report. Read the article here.

Litigation Promotes Patient Safety – Are You Kidding?

August 15, 2024September 24, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Recently, a defense attorney hosted Malpractice 101 on the physician social networking site, sermo.com. A multitude of questions were answered.

Sprinkled in the answers was the conclusion the tort system has a number of salutary effects – namely patient safety. The moderator recited the (now stale) observation from the 1980’s. To paraphrase: Anesthesiologists embraced pulse oximetry because their med mal premiums were too high. They identified the source of high premiums – anoxic injuries and deaths, and crafted a solution. Pulse oximetry. Once embraced, their ORs became safer, and premiums went down.

While I will not quibble that pulse oximetry is a good thing, (it is), I would argue it was a basic innovation that was embraced by the profession, irrespective of premium cost. Here’s why.

Medical Justice on ReachMD

August 15, 2024September 24, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Medical Justice CEO, Dr. Jeff Segal, was recently featured on the ReachMD radio program “Preventing Frivolous Lawsuits and Frivolous Testimony,” hosted by Shane Jackson, Executive Vice President of Jackson Healthcare/President, LocumTenens.com. Dr. Segal shared his experience of being sued, and his expertise in the areas of defensive medicine, frivolous lawsuits, frivolous testimony, and non-legislative solutions … Read more

Healthcare Reform – A Duty To Patients, A Call To Arms

August 15, 2024September 17, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Being a physician, one’s first duty is to one’s patients. When Congress passed the healthcare reform bills, more than a few of us were doubtful that this was going to help. Many more felt there were far better possible solutions to be found. Few felt the entire 500+ seats of Congress should have taken an entire year to come up with that legislation. But when it passed, we hoped for the best, and figured it could always be changed before it went into full effect. That last may be the best idea in the whole stew.

Look Who’s Getting a Tax Break: Plaintiff’s Attorneys

August 15, 2024September 10, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

The Treasury Department is rumored to be on the verge of reversing a long-standing policy which did not help personal injury attorneys. The status quo: litigation expenses in contingency agreements are not deductible. Litigation expenses in contingency agreements are considered loans advanced to the plaintiff. Of course, if the plaintiff loses, the loan is not … Read more

And THEN they said…

August 15, 2024September 8, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

The past couple of years have been full of promises. There was going to be health care reform, universal coverage, coverage for those who have pre-existing conditions, a sincere attempt to reduce the obscene cost of health care… the list goes on and on. So far, unfortunately, the bottom line is actually a step or three backwards.

Yes, Congress did pass what they CALLED healthcare reform. But it didn’t have one word in it about tort reform. To make matters worse, several states’ supreme courts are now hearing cases that claim that caps on awards are unConstitutional. To make matters worse yet, those cases are winning. At least some of that is because judges don’t like being told what they can or cannot do/award, even if the caps are reasonable. So even when a state makes a tort reform law, the System seems bound and determined to override it.

Why Should We Care About Caps?

August 15, 2024September 1, 2010 by Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

All across the nation, states are pushing cases that challenge the sanity of tort reform laws. In states where tort reform has been enacted, cases are making their way up through to that state’s Supreme Court, complaining that the law against maximum awards (caps) on pain and suffering are either insufficient, or shouldn’t exist at all. Some judges seem to side with the plaintiffs — not because they think the plaintiffs are necessarily getting an unfair verdict, but because they don’t like laws that limit their autonomy. Some might claim this is legislating from the bench as well. In the bigger picture, the awards themselves aren’t what’s putting a stranglehold on the medical profession. In a practical world, then, why should we care?

+ More