November 22nd, 2011 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
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
Gastroenterologist
Correct Diagnosis and Treatment in 2-3% of Cases
We would have to Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
November 9th, 2011 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
With regard to physicians’ support for medical malpractice reform, the times they are a changin’. These iconic words of Bob Dylan, who has now reached the 8th decade of life, apply to the medical liability crisis that traditionally has been a unifying issue for physicians.
The New York Times reported that physicians in Maine are going soft on this issue, but I suspect this conversion is not limited to the Pine Tree State. Heretofore, it was assumed that physicians as a group loathed the medical malpractice system and demanded tort reform. The system, we argued, was unfair, arbitrary, and expensive. It missed most cases of true medical negligence. It lit the fuse that exploded the practice of defensive medicine. Rising premiums drove good doctors out of town or out of practice.
What happened? The medical malpractice system is as unfair as ever. Tort reform proposals are still regarded as experimental by the reigning Democrats in congress and in the White House. The reason that this issue has slipped in priority for physicians is because Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
June 11th, 2011 by Shadowfax in Opinion
No Comments »
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*
June 4th, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in News, Research
1 Comment »
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*
December 15th, 2010 by Michael Sevilla, M.D. in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, True Stories
No Comments »
My professional organization recently asked me to participate in an interesting meeting at the state capitol talking about healthcare payment reform and how to improve the healthcare delivery system. This was sponsored by the state of Ohio and their Health Care Coverage and Quality Council.
It was the first meeting that I’ve been to where there were physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients — all trying to put our heads together — present our points of view and try to come to consensus. Did we come to consensus on solutions? Not really, only that we will continue the conversation. There is no perfect solution that will make everyone happy, but we will strive to try to get to that best imperfect solution.
When is comes to healthcare delivery and healthcare payment, there was a lot of discussion on physicians and hospitals — meaning healthcare providers. The motivating factor in these cases uses terms like payment, lack of payment, incentives, bonuses, and penalties. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Doctor Anonymous*
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.
