tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post1953915923637960420..comments2024-03-22T17:05:55.267-04:00Comments on MD Whistleblower: Medical Malpractice Reform Losing Physician SupportMichael Kirsch, M.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-19726173674461572322011-12-05T17:03:51.606-05:002011-12-05T17:03:51.606-05:00"Litigomania has cooled in Ohio since tort re..."Litigomania has cooled in Ohio since tort reform was passed."<br /><br />More accurately, the insurance climate improved and insurers started making more money on their investments so they stopped squeezing the physicians and making them squawk.<br /><br />It's unlikely that the number of claims, the amount of payouts, or most importantly, the amount of malpractice in Ohio changed at all. What did happen was those injured the worst now find their cases have been arbitrarily capped.<br /><br />Why you support such an outcome given that it doesn't address your central criticism is beyond me. Either your complaint - that not enough people are access the system - isn't genuine, or you don't understand the ramifications of the things you support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-83894378588593818222011-12-04T16:20:25.703-05:002011-12-04T16:20:25.703-05:00Physicians were never the driver of this, they wer...Physicians were never the driver of this, they were just the faces of the insurance companies and big pharma. Dupes, for the most part, most of which had (have) a meager understanding of how insurance works and with little interest in learning. Their goal was to lower their own insurance premiums, and to avoid ever having to give a deposition. They weren't really interested in changing their own practices/behavior to accomplish these things, so they became mouthpieces for much wealthier entities with real bottom line goals. <br /><br />Had they stayed engaged, would it have ultimately benefited physicians? Maybe, although insurers tend to like keeping the money they make, not passing it on to customers. Would it have ultimately benefited patients? All available evidence points to no.<br /><br />Really, it's probably best physicians are stepping away. They were losing credibility as people who cared about patients in leading the charge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-57671299893850020402011-11-13T17:21:18.270-05:002011-11-13T17:21:18.270-05:00Hi, Dr. Kirsch. Long time, no see.
I'm here h...Hi, Dr. Kirsch. Long time, no see. <br />I'm here having linked from your comment at the Health Care Blog regarding that terrible situation (all too common, as I'm sure you know) where yet another patient didn't have an advance directive and the doctor was caught in a trap not of his own making. <br /><br />Your post here about "tort reform," which I always read as "liability cap", reminded me of an isolated example I came across a couple years ago at Maggie Mahar's place. <br /><br /><i>...In the mid-70’s, anesthesiologists faced the highest malpractice insurance premiums of any specialty – often as high as $100,000 a year (and those are 1975 dollars, remember.) The Society of Anesthesiology, realizing that this was threatening the viability of many practices, created a national panel which developed a set of specific standards for anesthesia practice. <br /><br />They then created a task force of lawyers and academic experts that offered its support to any practitioner who could document that they had followed the standards but was still being sued. Verdicts against anesthesiologists plunged ,and--since plaintiffs attorneys cannot afford to lose regularly –the number of lawsuits declined sharply Insurance premiums fell by 90%. <br /><br />More importantly, complications of anesthesia and deaths from anesthesia also declined .The standards not only had the desired result of ending the malpractice crisis in anesthesia, but also made anesthetic management safer and more effective. This created an impressive win for the patients as well as the doctors.</i><br /><br />http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/03/a-guest-post-what-the-doctor-ordered.html<br /><br />Evcer since I read that I have wondered why the same principle might not be encouraged across the professional landscape. It seems almost too simple and self-evident to be true. "Who knew?" as they say. <br /><br />Not trying to start anything. Just thought I'd toss that into the conversation for consideration.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11858939352263715787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-23124649332468891522011-11-11T11:01:23.666-05:002011-11-11T11:01:23.666-05:00Good point, Nick. Litigomania has cooled in Ohio ...Good point, Nick. Litigomania has cooled in Ohio since tort reform was passed. We had to elect new supreme court justices to do this.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-54558754336249490462011-11-10T21:26:50.114-05:002011-11-10T21:26:50.114-05:00I think in some ways it may work out better. Doct...I think in some ways it may work out better. Doctors are notoriously bad at, or just averse to, organizing together for a common goal. Hospitals and large health care organizations on the other hand, are much better at it. If most physicians are employed, the incentive to reform malpractice does indeed fall to the larger organizations, and as such may be better addressed than it has been up to now.Nicholas Fogelson, MDhttp://www.academicobygyn.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-17971559831607916332011-11-06T11:03:20.011-05:002011-11-06T11:03:20.011-05:00Appreciate the comment. One of my points is that ...Appreciate the comment. One of my points is that physicians' zeal for malpractice reform will decline as their job model moves away from private practice. We'll have to see how much push back against the medical malpractice system the large institutions are prepared for. You may be right that they are keeping their powder dry for now.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-35177685945922179082011-11-06T09:04:56.156-05:002011-11-06T09:04:56.156-05:00You make a good point, but won't the changing ...You make a good point, but won't the changing climate mean that these large health conglomerates will be clamoring for said reform? They can easily throw millions into politician's pockets and will do so if the numbers are in their favor. For example, a few years ago the huge "non-profit" health system where I lived made a profit of $618 million off of 6.8 billion in revenues. They have the cash that private practice doesn't to pay off politicians.Given that, I'd say that malpractice reform is more likely given the consolidation of our health care systems.<br /><br />Now, with the current political/corporate climate, the health systems are likely to keep quiet about their dealings. So while malpractice reform might no longer be a hot-button physician issue, it is far from dead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com