When lawyers talk, I listen. Two attorneys penned a piece on medical malpractice reform in the April 21st issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, the most prestigious medical journal on the planet. Here is an excerpt from their article, New Directions in Medical Liability Reform.
The best estimates are that only 2 to 3% of patients injured by negligence file claims, only about half of claimants recover money, and litigation is resolved discordantly with the merit of the claim (i.e., money is awarded in nonmeritorious cases or no money is awarded in meritorious cases) about a quarter of the time.
This is not self-serving drivel spewed forth by greedy, bitter doctors, but a view offered by attorneys, esteemed officers of the court. Apply the statistics in their quote to your profession. Would you be satisfied if your efforts were benefiting 2-3% of your customers or clients? Would this performance level give me bragging rights as a gastroenterologist? Perhaps, I should attach a new slogan to my business card.
Michael Kirsch, MD
Correct Diagnosis and Treatment in 2-3% of Cases
We would have to Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
Medical malpractice reform is in the news again. Of course, for the medical profession, the medical malpractice system is the wound that simply will not heal. For the plaintiffs bar, in contrast, the medical liability system is the gift that keeps on giving. I have argued that the current system fails on four important fronts.
- Quality Improvement
I admit readily that my profession has not been as diligent as it should be in holding ourselves accountable. We have not been forthright in admitting our medical errors, although can you blame us under the current medical liability construct? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
It’s ever so satisfying to be proven right. Well, maybe “proven” is too strong a word to use, but there is a bit of strong evidence that, as I have said in the past, the practice of defensive medicine is driven by powerful multifactorial incentives and is very unlikely to change even if the most often-asserted motivator, liability, is controlled. Today, Aaron Carroll guest blogs at Ezra Klein’s WaPo digs:
The argument goes that doctors, afraid of being sued, order lots of extra tests and procedures to protect themselves. This is known as defensive medicine. Tort reform assumes that if we put a cap on the damages plaintiffs can win, then filing cases will be less attractive, fewer claims will be made, insurance companies will save money, malpractice premiums will come down, doctors will feel safer and will practice less defensive medicine, and health-care spending will go way down.[...]
Health Affairs in December, estimated that medical liability system costs were about $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars, or about 2.4 percent of all U.S. health-care spending. Some of that was indemnity payments, and some of it was the cost of components like lawyers, judges, etc.; most of this, however, or about $47 billion, was defensive medicine. So yes, that is real money, and it theoretically could be reduced.
The question is, will tort reform do that? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
Physicians don’t make money from the tests, prescriptions, procedures and admissions they order, according to a new survey by the staffing and technology company Jackson Healthcare. At most, 6.2% of physicians’ total compensation comes from the doctor’s orders, the survey reported.
Direct income from medical orders comprised:
–0.5% from charges from prescriptions,
–1.0% from charges from lab tests,
–1.1% from charges associated with hospital admission,
–1.3% from charges associated with facility fees for surgeries, and
–2.3% from charges from diagnostic imaging.
The survey of 1,512 physicians challenged claims that physicians won’t stop practicing defensive medicine because they profit from their medical orders, the company stated in a press release.
“Many outside the industry believe that physicians make a lot of money on the tests, prescriptions, procedures and admissions they order,” said Richard Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare. “The reality is that most (82%) do not make any money from their orders. For the remaining that do, it constitutes a fraction of their total compensation.” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
It’s heart wrenching when young athletes die of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Last week the death of Wes Leonard, a Michigan high school star athlete, was especially poignant since he collapsed right after making the game-winning shot. This sort of tragedy occurs about one hundred times each year in America. That’s a lot of sadness. The obvious question is: Could these deaths be prevented? Let’s start with what actually happens.
Most cases of sudden death in young people occur as a result of either hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), an abnormal thickening of heart muscle, or long QT syndrome (LQTS), a mostly inherited disease of the heart’s electrical system. Both HCM and LQTS predispose the heart to ventricular fibrillation — electrical chaos of the pumping chamber of the heart. The adrenaline surges of athletic competition increase the odds of this chaos. Unfortunately, like heart disease often does, both these ailments can strike without warning.
Sudden death is sad enough by itself, but what makes it even worse is that both these ailments are mostly detectable with two simple painless tests: The ECG and echocardiogram (heart ultrasound). Let’s get these kids ECGs and echos then. “Git ‘er dun,” you might say.
On the surface the solution seems simple: Implement universal cardiac screening of all young athletes. And you wouldn’t be alone in thinking this way. You could even boast the support of Dr. Manny Alvarez of Fox News and the entire country of Italy, where all athletes get ECGs and echos before competing. But America isn’t Italy, and things aren’t as simple as Fox News likes to suggest. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr John M*