Damn I'm smart . . . real smart when it comes to real medical malpractice reform

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Not surprising that insurance companies ARE NOT in the coalition (excerpts from AMEDNEWS.COM
A new coalition of patients, attorneys, doctors and hospital administrators across the nation has an idea to keep liability costs and medical errors down at the same time.

The group is called the Sorry Works! Coalition. Its members describe the idea like this:
* Hospitals and physicians review every adverse incident.

* Hospital administrators and physicians sit down with patients and families to explain what happened.

* The hospital and doctor apologize if a mistake was made and offer the patient or family fair compensation if the investigation finds that there was a medical error. They explain how the problem will be corrected.


The Illinois Senate passed legislation that would create a pilot Sorry Works! program, and several hospitals have used the model for years. The result, those involved say, has been better physician-patient relationships and lower legal costs.

Patients are compensated faster for injuries, and physicians and patients avoid spending the time and money it takes to prepare to go to court.

Johns Hopkins, Children's Hospitals and Clinics in Minneapolis and the University of Michigan Health System are among facilities that created disclosure policies in recent years that are similar to what Sorry Works! is advocating. The University of Michigan Health System saw legal costs drop to $1 million annually, down from the $3 million it used to spend.

Somebody stole my idea . . . I should sue!
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Need to add greatly reducing fraud to your poll.
I agree with you but there's a problem . . . as long as healthcare is 1/6 to 1/7 of GDP . . . crooks are going to be attracted to the enterprise. I think we need to do a better job of "broad daylight stealing" such as prescription drugs before trimming at the edges for say MDs that overbill.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Seems kind of fishy to me having the hospitals, doctors, and attorneys investigating their own? What next, Illinois is going to pass a law to create parole boards from the inmates?

I don't discount the seed of the idea, but an independent review board would seem a more appropriate method of making determinations in this matter.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Malpractice is so high because we've become a sue happy country.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Most major law enforcement agencies have internal review boards. It's an accepted practice. Sadly, medicine indeed has medical review boards but they are pretty ineffective.

Your analogy is weak. A more reasonable comparison would be a parole board that included inmates along with victims, prison administrators, attorneys, etc.

Doctors and hospitals are the "offending" party but 99.999999% of the incidents are unintentional. Further, the fewer mistakes we make the better off we are . . . not to mention the better off the patients are.

"Citizen review" doesn't make much sense b/c they will NEVER understand medical decisionmaking. John Edwards made a fortune by exploiting what they do know . . . 1) harm, 2) deep pockets, and 3) indifference. These proposed reforms basically acknowledges truth which is the harm caused by medical errors while totally eliminating the indifference. Medmal cases will fall dramatically when a concerted effort is made at reducing HARM and demonstrating we CARE that something went wrong.

It's a gamble b/c we may discover that healthcare professionals REALLY sux. On the otherhand, early results are that errors can be pre-empted and that those that get by . . . may be forgiven under multiple circumstances.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Doctors and hospitals are the "offending" party but 99.999999% of the incidents are unintentional. Further, the fewer mistakes we make the better off we are . . . not to mention the better off the patients are.

We can never get to 100% because we're dealing with humans.

"Citizen review" doesn't make much sense b/c they will NEVER understand medical decisionmaking.

Part of the problem with healthcare today. How can Blue Cross tell a doctor what they can/can't prescribe? Or what procedure is necessary?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Well . . . the only way to make healthcare simple is for people to take better frickin' care of themselves.
STOP smoking
STOP drinking (excessively)
STOP watching TV
EXERCISE a lot more
DRIVE slower (and less)
GET more sleep
EAT more fruits and vegetables
EAT less meat, whole dairy, and sodium
CONSUME less caffeine
AVOID processed foods
Universally vaccinate against common illnesses

People will still get sick but the lower frequency will dramatically lower cost of care and it's possible that people will get better healthcare.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Your system could never be like Canada's at this point.
[/quote]
Both systems have their pluses and minuses.
It all comes down to whether or not you believe that healthcare is an expectation or a luxury.

It is not comparing apples to apples. There are flaws in the Canadian system and flaws in the American system.

Canadian system tends to have longer waiting lines. But everyone is covered.
Americans have faster service. But 15% or so do not have health insurance.

Canadian system has been government run for over 30 years.
Switching over to a public system in the US could put even more strain on a ~$500b deficit.
The healthcare industry is the largest industry in the US (i think) and converting and restructuring would be very costly and a nightmare logistically.

There are also social issues to contend with. Per capita major crimes, car accidents, and pollution exposure is much higher in the US and will in the end cost more.

I am a supporter of two-tier healthcare. Not popular with the people in Canada but to me makes sense.
If you are rich and pay your taxes, and continue to effectively pay into the public healthcare system, i have no problems with you going to a private hospital to pay for your treatment. This not only allows the rich to avoid long lines, but the poor have one less person in front of them in line. And since the rich person is effectively paying double, the care for the poorer majority would be the same or improved.

Now it is very well known that Canada spends far less than the US on healthcare (not even taking into account the efficiencies) but in the end we are basically stuck with what we've got.

For reference: Canada Medicare
Country / life expectancy / infant mortality / per capita cost (USD) / % GDP / % gov't revenue / % paid by gov't / % paid by private sector
Canada 79.3 / 5.6 / 2,163 / 9.5 / 16.2 / 70.8 / 29.2
USA 77.0 / 6.4 / 4,887 / 13.9 / 17.6 / 44.4 / 55.6
Canadian and American systems compared
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Most major law enforcement agencies have internal review boards. It's an accepted practice. Sadly, medicine indeed has medical review boards but they are pretty ineffective.

Your analogy is weak. A more reasonable comparison would be a parole board that included inmates along with victims, prison administrators, attorneys, etc.

Doctors and hospitals are the "offending" party but 99.999999% of the incidents are unintentional. Further, the fewer mistakes we make the better off we are . . . not to mention the better off the patients are.

"Citizen review" doesn't make much sense b/c they will NEVER understand medical decisionmaking. John Edwards made a fortune by exploiting what they do know . . . 1) harm, 2) deep pockets, and 3) indifference. These proposed reforms basically acknowledges truth which is the harm caused by medical errors while totally eliminating the indifference. Medmal cases will fall dramatically when a concerted effort is made at reducing HARM and demonstrating we CARE that something went wrong.

It's a gamble b/c we may discover that healthcare professionals REALLY sux. On the otherhand, early results are that errors can be pre-empted and that those that get by . . . may be forgiven under multiple circumstances.
I would much rather see the AMA provide public records on malpractice cases and the frequency of such for specific doctors. It's my understanding that the vast majority of malpractice is by a very small percentage of doctors, at least here in Florida. If the AMA were more proactive about cleaning their own house and show some good faith in that area, then it would be time to look at tort reform and the insurance business angle as well. When a doctor consistently has numerous malpractice cases brougth against them they need to be removed from the profession and not have the issue covered up and swept under a rug.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well . . . the only way to make healthcare simple is for people to take better frickin' care of themselves.
STOP smoking
STOP drinking (excessively)
STOP watching TV
EXERCISE a lot more
DRIVE slower (and less)
GET more sleep
EAT more fruits and vegetables
EAT less meat, whole dairy, and sodium
CONSUME less caffeine
AVOID processed foods
Universally vaccinate against common illnesses

People will still get sick but the lower frequency will dramatically lower cost of care and it's possible that people will get better healthcare.
So.. would you be for or against federal legislation that attempted to dictate this ideal lifestyle to us?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well . . . the only way to make healthcare simple is for people to take better frickin' care of themselves.
STOP smoking
STOP drinking (excessively)
STOP watching TV
EXERCISE a lot more
DRIVE slower (and less)
GET more sleep
EAT more fruits and vegetables
EAT less meat, whole dairy, and sodium
CONSUME less caffeine
AVOID processed foods
Universally vaccinate against common illnesses

People will still get sick but the lower frequency will dramatically lower cost of care and it's possible that people will get better healthcare.

Canada noted this a long time ago and has implemented this into our healthcare system. Not only do they offer heathcare coverage but the promote healthy living. Here is their site. Studies have shown that healthcare costs are drastically reduced with these programs rather than fixing it when it breaks. Preventative Maintenance if you will.

Actually a Canadian study shows that 7 hours of sleep is the optimum. With any deviance from that value favouring the low end. So to live the longest, 7 or less hours :)
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
No, we have to enact tort reform to punish victims and reward insurrance companies. That's what Dubya says, and what he says is gospel.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
how about along with limiting the awards to limitng what insurance companies can charge. last i checked, the insurnace companies have been making bank every quarter for the last 5 years
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
how about along with limiting the awards to limitng what insurance companies can charge. last i checked, the insurnace companies have been making bank every quarter for the last 5 years
One thing to consider, this tort reform rhetoric only comes up in years of bad stock market performance since insurance companies aren't making money on their investments.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well . . . the only way to make healthcare simple is for people to take better frickin' care of themselves.
STOP smoking
STOP drinking (excessively)
STOP watching TV
EXERCISE a lot more
DRIVE slower (and less)
GET more sleep
EAT more fruits and vegetables
EAT less meat, whole dairy, and sodium
CONSUME less caffeine
AVOID processed foods
Universally vaccinate against common illnesses

People will still get sick but the lower frequency will dramatically lower cost of care and it's possible that people will get better healthcare.
So.. would you be for or against federal legislation that attempted to dictate this ideal lifestyle to us?

I'm against subsidizing bad behaviors. I'm in favor of subsidizing good ones. Clearly, our elected leaders are loathe to apply reasonable thought to these issues. For instance, I would absolutely PROHIBIT food advertisement to children under 12 unless it's a PSA for fruits, vegetables, or low fat dairy. The government should subsidize the production and/or purchase of said products. The government should tax products such as high sat'd fat fast food, processed foods, etc. People would still be free to select any food they wanted but they would pay the REAL cost of making such choices instead of having the costs distributed through the population (total healthcare expenditures).

Taxing cigarettes/tobacco clearly works. I wouldn't tax it out of existence b/c that just drives the activity to the ilicit ledger. I wouldn't tax alcohol to the same extent but I would certainly tax "volume" purchases (8pk+ or any single beverage bottle exceeding 16oz).

I do not believe government can (or should) serve as the nanny . . . but arguably the decades of subsidizing tobacco and turning a blind eye to alcohol . . . justifies some modicum of balance through a few years of "favoring" healthy lifestyle choices.