DEFENSIVE MEDICINE is what causes costs to always SOAR!

[BenMarbleMD]

yep...here is how it works

1-lawyers file 100 frivolous malpractice suits and lose all 100 but still get paid for everyone...

2-doctors fear getting sued so they order 50 tests when the patient may need none bc of that one in a million rare condition/last lawsuit lost crap

3-the patients bill is way more than it should be so the insurance companies refuse to pay it...
they also have a huge scam where they have 'code lingo' that if the doctor doesnt write the latest code lingo on the chart they are able to justify not paying the bill...the problem is the code lingo is always changing so the doctors can never keep up with it...

4-insurance companies pass the buck i.e. always increasing premiums


so basically doctors and nurses have a SYMBIOTIC relationship with patients whereas the
attorneys and insurance companies have a PARASITIC relationship with patients..

The real question is why do the lawyers/insurance companies even have at seat at the healtcare table when all they do is act as leeches sucking the life out of patients?

The only solution is removing the leeches from the equation via the 'single payer option' WITH a NO LAWSUIT clause!

 

[FA_Q2]

yep...here is how it works

1-lawyers file 100 frivolous malpractice suits and lose all 100 but still get paid for everyone...

2-doctors fear getting sued so they order 50 tests when the patient may need none bc of that one in a million rare condition/last lawsuit lost crap

3-the patients bill is way more than it should be so the insurance companies refuse to pay it...
they also have a huge scam where they have 'code lingo' that if the doctor doesnt write the latest code lingo on the chart they are able to justify not paying the bill...the problem is the code lingo is always changing so the doctors can never keep up with it...

4-insurance companies pass the buck i.e. always increasing premiums


so basically doctors and nurses have a SYMBIOTIC relationship with patients whereas the
attorneys and insurance companies have a PARASITIC relationship with patients..

The real question is why do the lawyers/insurance companies even have at seat at the healtcare table when all they do is act as leeches sucking the life out of patients?

The only solution is removing the leeches from the equation via the 'single payer option' WITH a NO LAWSUIT clause!

Single payer does not remove the leaches, it replaces the leaches of the insurance company (one that can be sued, regulated, closed down, fired or otherwise replaced with another) with the leeches of the government. I cannot fathom how you want the same people that control the laws and regulations to also be the people that control the cash. I like to have those entities seperate to cover a little of the checks and balances. Once we go to a single payer system, the people that have the cash and deny paying a procedure will have the end all say and there will be NOTHING you can do about it. That is not a place I want to be.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No lawsuit clause? That seems misguided. Doctors should be held accountable for their actions if they do actually meet the "4 D's" criteria: Dereliction of a Duty Directly causing Damages. The problem is that our legal system does not allow for precedence to automatically throw out frivolous lawsuits. There ought to be a running list of situations that people CANNOT sue over. Alternately, a loser-pays system would dscourage frivolous lawsuits by making the patient pay the legal fees if they lose their case.

 

[johnrocks]

Yeah, that is such an awful plan I don't even know where to take it as some sort of sarcastic post or not. A single payer plan with no suits reminds me of the story I heard just yesterday where Safeway gave this pregnant woman another woman's prescription by mistake;the damn morning after abortion pill! Her baby may now die or be severely deformed so to not allow suits or limiting them in the "Land of the Free" has to be one of the more bone headed ideas I have heard;mainly members of the GOP;yap about.

What drives costs up is basically other people paying the tab, get government and employers out of the equation and I will bet my front row seat in Hell that you'd see prices stabalize.

 

[peach174]

Why wouldn't the Dem's allow torte reform? Because they thought that it would not make much of a difference, even though the Doctor's were telling them that it would be a very big difference. The Doctor's are still saying this in the newest hearings.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why wouldn't the Dem's allow torte reform? Because they thought that it would not make much of a difference, even though the Doctor's were telling them that it would be a very big difference. The Doctor's are still saying this in the newest hearings.

No suit clause is not tort reform.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Truth be told it WON'T make much of a difference as far as money goes. It's a very small minority of what drives up cost, and doesn't address many of the big issues. Nonetheless, it would be helpful for doctors, which is why docs want it.

 

[peach174]

Why wouldn't the Dem's allow torte reform? Because they thought that it would not make much of a difference, even though the Doctor's were telling them that it would be a very big difference. The Doctor's are still saying this in the newest hearings.

No suit clause is not tort reform.

I'm not the one that said No Lawsuit clause, BenMarble said it. You are quoting the wrong person.

 

[MaggieMae]

yep...here is how it works

1-lawyers file 100 frivolous malpractice suits and lose all 100 but still get paid for everyone...

2-doctors fear getting sued so they order 50 tests when the patient may need none bc of that one in a million rare condition/last lawsuit lost crap

3-the patients bill is way more than it should be so the insurance companies refuse to pay it...
they also have a huge scam where they have 'code lingo' that if the doctor doesnt write the latest code lingo on the chart they are able to justify not paying the bill...the problem is the code lingo is always changing so the doctors can never keep up with it...

4-insurance companies pass the buck i.e. always increasing premiums


so basically doctors and nurses have a SYMBIOTIC relationship with patients whereas the
attorneys and insurance companies have a PARASITIC relationship with patients..

The real question is why do the lawyers/insurance companies even have at seat at the healtcare table when all they do is act as leeches sucking the life out of patients?

The only solution is removing the leeches from the equation via the 'single payer option' WITH a NO LAWSUIT clause!

When is the patient going to start just saying NO to extensive testing? I have. I got sick of having blood work taken every time I went in for an ear infection or some other minor complaint. The labs who do those tests charge way more than Medicare covers, and they don't care. Somehow I can't feel sorry for them. The costs of health care are ridiculously high in this country for the same services in other countries.

By the way, I've never known a doctor who drove a used Chevy, lived in a modest home, or couldn't afford to send the kids to expensive colleges. If after all his schooling he believes he deserves to live high off the hog, then I think he also has a responsibility to make damned sure he doesn't make medical mistakes which drive up malpractice insurance.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why wouldn't the Dem's allow torte reform? Because they thought that it would not make much of a difference, even though the Doctor's were telling them that it would be a very big difference. The Doctor's are still saying this in the newest hearings.

No suit clause is not tort reform.

I'm not the one that said No Lawsuit clause, BenMarble said it. You are quoting the wrong person.

Apologies, did not mean to misconstrue your point. Just making a statement as to the OP's version of tort reform.

Honestly, the effect of tort reform is larger than at first glance though. There is an issue of not just the insurance and lawsuit costs but also the costs of practices that are not needed for particular procedures. The bigger issue though is the out and out costs for procedures in general. Does anyone here have any idea what an MRI costs if you go in and pay cash. I'll give you a chance to guess but I'll be that the answer will be very surprising.

 

[MaggieMae]

No lawsuit clause? That seems misguided. Doctors should be held accountable for their actions if they do actually meet the "4 D's" criteria: Dereliction of a Duty Directly causing Damages. The problem is that our legal system does not allow for precedence to automatically throw out frivolous lawsuits. There ought to be a running list of situations that people CANNOT sue over. Alternately, a loser-pays system would dscourage frivolous lawsuits by making the patient pay the legal fees if they lose their case.

There already exists precedent for filing frivolous lawsuits, but it just isn't strong enough. A judge always has the option of throwing out a complaint if he/she deems it frivolous, even without precedent. Here's some suggestions:

Reduce the large number of lawsuits

A Few Solutions to reduce the large number of lawsuits. . .

The large number of lawsuits Solution 1: Change the law regarding what is considered a frivolous lawsuit

Anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit and when called on it can simply amend it to involve something less specific that eliminates the frivolous label.

To obtain sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit in Texas, a defendant has to prove, after an evidentiary hearing, that the lawsuit was not only groundless, but was brought in bad faith. To do this, one must overcome the presumption that papers are filed in good faith. Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 13; GTE Comm. Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725, 731 (Tex. 1993). "A trial court may not base Rule 13 sanctions on the legal merit of a pleading or motion." Aldine ISD v. Baty, 999 S.W.2d 113, 116-17 (Tex. App. Houston 1999). The lawyer of "empty head and pure heart" avoids sanctions—and the defendant ends up incurring additional fees and costs over the evidentiary hearing, no matter how groundless the initial suit. So when you hear that recovery is possible for frivolous lawsuits, remember that the judicial system has a different definition for "frivolous" than the layperson does.

I believe California has a similar law.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, that is such an awful plan I don't even know where to take it as some sort of sarcastic post or not. A single payer plan with no suits reminds me of the story I heard just yesterday where Safeway gave this pregnant woman another woman's prescription by mistake;the damn morning after abortion pill! Her baby may now die or be severely deformed so to not allow suits or limiting them in the "Land of the Free" has to be one of the more bone headed ideas I have heard;mainly members of the GOP;yap about.

What drives costs up is basically other people paying the tab, get government and employers out of the equation and I will bet my front row seat in Hell that you'd see prices stabalize.

Lower health care costs? In the United States? Surely you jest. It's way too profitable.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

When is the patient going to start just saying NO to extensive testing? I have. I got sick of having blood work taken every time I went in for an ear infection or some other minor complaint. The labs who do those tests charge way more than Medicare covers, and they don't care. Somehow I can't feel sorry for them. The costs of health care are ridiculously high in this country for the same services in other countries.

By the way, I've never known a doctor who drove a used Chevy, lived in a modest home, or couldn't afford to send the kids to expensive colleges. If after all his schooling he believes he deserves to live high off the hog, then I think he also has a responsibility to make damned sure he doesn't make medical mistakes which drive up malpractice insurance.

A few extra blood tests is usually not defensive medicine. Sending every patient to get a CT scan that costs 100 TIMES more than a blood test is generally what drives things up. Also, no doctor acts in ways to avoid driving up malpractice insurance cost. They act to avoid getting SUED.

 

[beennasuna]

The real problem isn't the idea of wasting medicine. It's that the drugs cost so much here, when you can get the same drugs in Canada for pennies on the dollar.

 

[uscitizen]

Why wouldn't the Dem's allow torte reform? Because they thought that it would not make much of a difference, even though the Doctor's were telling them that it would be a very big difference. The Doctor's are still saying this in the newest hearings.

Of course doctors are saying this, it would make a much bigger difference to them than to the consumers of medical care.

Tort reform is just a fancy of saying you lose your rights to finiancial redress if you are wronged by a doctors error.

What we need it to get rid of bad doctors we need an independent agency to monitor doctors performance. Not protedt the doctors from the penalties of bad work by removing the victims right to sue.

I have never seen a perfromance sheet for my doctor. How can a consumer make an informed decision on choosing a doctor if there is no information available to base their decision on?

We also need to reinstate the rules of no lawyer advertising for a speciality.
Things worked better when that rule was in place. Now we see billboards encouraging people to sue.

We also need bargaining power to lower the prices of prescription medicines.

 

[uscitizen]

And medicaid pationets need to pay a minimal copay for emergency room use to they would ot go there for every sniffle to get a school excuse.

And parents need some training on how to use cold rmemdies properly on chilodren to prevent someting that can be ttreated properly with over the counter medicines from becoming an emergency room visit.

 

[FA_Q2]

When is the patient going to start just saying NO to extensive testing? I have. I got sick of having blood work taken every time I went in for an ear infection or some other minor complaint. The labs who do those tests charge way more than Medicare covers, and they don't care. Somehow I can't feel sorry for them. The costs of health care are ridiculously high in this country for the same services in other countries.

By the way, I've never known a doctor who drove a used Chevy, lived in a modest home, or couldn't afford to send the kids to expensive colleges. If after all his schooling he believes he deserves to live high off the hog, then I think he also has a responsibility to make damned sure he doesn't make medical mistakes which drive up malpractice insurance.

A few extra blood tests is usually not defensive medicine. Sending every patient to get a CT scan that costs 100 TIMES more than a blood test is generally what drives things up. Also, no doctor acts in ways to avoid driving up malpractice insurance cost. They act to avoid getting SUED.

That was partially the point I was going to make but no one took me up on the offer. CT scans only cost what they do because of the insane practices of how we pay for basic care. I can get an MRI for under 200 bucks but I will guarantee that cost is several magnitudes higher for anyone that has insurance.

 

[FA_Q2]

And medicaid pationets need to pay a minimal copay for emergency room use to they would ot go there for every sniffle to get a school excuse.

And parents need some training on how to use cold rmemdies properly on chilodren to prevent someting that can be ttreated properly with over the counter medicines from becoming an emergency room visit.

Something that would be solved of you actually had to pay for anything that was not related to an emergency.

 

[MaggieMae]

When is the patient going to start just saying NO to extensive testing? I have. I got sick of having blood work taken every time I went in for an ear infection or some other minor complaint. The labs who do those tests charge way more than Medicare covers, and they don't care. Somehow I can't feel sorry for them. The costs of health care are ridiculously high in this country for the same services in other countries.

By the way, I've never known a doctor who drove a used Chevy, lived in a modest home, or couldn't afford to send the kids to expensive colleges. If after all his schooling he believes he deserves to live high off the hog, then I think he also has a responsibility to make damned sure he doesn't make medical mistakes which drive up malpractice insurance.

A few extra blood tests is usually not defensive medicine. Sending every patient to get a CT scan that costs 100 TIMES more than a blood test is generally what drives things up. Also, no doctor acts in ways to avoid driving up malpractice insurance cost. They act to avoid getting SUED.

Ya think? Study after study proves that assumption wrong. Here's just one.

http://www.justice.org/resources/Medical_Negligence_Primer.pdf

 

[MaggieMae]

When is the patient going to start just saying NO to extensive testing? I have. I got sick of having blood work taken every time I went in for an ear infection or some other minor complaint. The labs who do those tests charge way more than Medicare covers, and they don't care. Somehow I can't feel sorry for them. The costs of health care are ridiculously high in this country for the same services in other countries.

By the way, I've never known a doctor who drove a used Chevy, lived in a modest home, or couldn't afford to send the kids to expensive colleges. If after all his schooling he believes he deserves to live high off the hog, then I think he also has a responsibility to make damned sure he doesn't make medical mistakes which drive up malpractice insurance.

A few extra blood tests is usually not defensive medicine. Sending every patient to get a CT scan that costs 100 TIMES more than a blood test is generally what drives things up. Also, no doctor acts in ways to avoid driving up malpractice insurance cost. They act to avoid getting SUED.

That was partially the point I was going to make but no one took me up on the offer. CT scans only cost what they do because of the insane practices of how we pay for basic care. I can get an MRI for under 200 bucks but I will guarantee that cost is several magnitudes higher for anyone that has insurance.

You're absolutely right. I remember seeing a letter written by someone and published in the AARP newsletter when the health care debate was in full swing, and it went something like: "After a visit to my doctor for [something], I was told my insurance company would be billed $200, so I asked the doctor (who is also my friend) what it would cost if I just paid the bill in cash. His response was Oh, about $40.00"

That kind of collaboration is why capitalism is becoming a dirty word.