The uninsured..........

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

A new scanner? And thus we have higher medical costs for tests that don't need to be done. Your "solution" perfectly illustrates my point of how attorneys cause higher medical costs.

The reason the old lady isn't going to the scanner first? Because she's in the waiting room waiting for a room to open up so a doctor can evaluate her. Do you know how many weak and dizzy old ladies come through the ER? No, they don't all go to the scanner.

The argument that defensive medicine is somehow good for patients is not a winner for you. Other issues? Perhaps. Please not this one.

You aren't being consistent. On the one hand, you are saying that the old lady died because she wasn't given a CT in time, and would have been but for the logjam at the CT scanner. On the other hand, you are saying that old ladies come through all the time and don't appear to have any extraordinary problems. If so, why would you push them through the CT at all in your perfect world?

You also complain about the higher medical costs you attribute to lawsuits. Then, when presented with an avenue for lowering those costs (by getting another machine where needed), you complain about the higher costs of buying a machine. Well, pick your poison. Medicine isn't a cheap profession. Certainly you knew that going in, right?

If people are dying "all the time" because of a logjam at the CT machine, it seems pretty clear you need another CT machine or you need to get better at determining who should get a CT first. What will encourage doctors to do either? The threat of losing money in a lawsuit.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The answer is to treat medical malpractice like every other specialty law--expert panels.

Attorneys, your collective silence in defending your Bar Association's stance on this is deafening.

Perhaps I am missing something- when are juries comprised only of experts on the subject matter?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You aren't being consistent. On the one hand, you are saying that the old lady died because she wasn't given a CT in time, and would have been but for the logjam at the CT scanner. On the other hand, you are saying that old ladies come through all the time and don't appear to have any extraordinary problems. If so, why would you push them through the CT at all in your perfect world?

You also complain about the higher medical costs you attribute to lawsuits. Then, when presented with an avenue for lowering those costs (by getting another machine where needed), you complain about the higher costs of buying a machine. Well, pick your poison. Medicine isn't a cheap profession. Certainly you knew that going in, right?

If people are dying "all the time" because of a logjam at the CT machine, it seems pretty clear you need another CT machine or you need to get better at determining who should get a CT first. What will encourage doctors to do either? The threat of losing money in a lawsuit.

Wow...I'm done with this. I don't even know where to start in addressing the ignorance of this post. And it's certainly not worth my time.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Perhaps I am missing something- when are juries comprised only of experts on the subject matter?

Patent law, for starters. Right?

Perhaps we could follow the rest of the western world in their examples of not only healthcare systems but malpractice law. Everyone else has expert panels. We have high school dropouts.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Patent law, for starters. Right?

Perhaps we could follow the rest of the western world in their examples of not only healthcare systems but malpractice law. Everyone else has expert panels. We have high school dropouts.

Um, no. Patent trials are heard by ordinary juries, just like other cases (in the exceptionally rare instances in which patent trials are actually heard by a jury). There is a special patent federal circuit, is that what you are thinking of? And that exists because it is constitutionally mandated (and it has nothing to do with the juries).

You don't give juries the credit they are due, either. You act as if they are all high school dropouts. People are perfectly capable of understanding complex issues, and both sides have the opportunity to dismiss jurors they find undesirable. Furthermore, juries are, overall, quite friendly to doctors. The last statistic I saw said that around 70% of all medmal jury trials are resolved in favor of the doctor/insurance company.

And why would we decide that medmal cases should be heard by an "expert" panel? Who are these experts? Doctors? Insurance representatives? Are we trying to stack the deck against the aggrieved? If so, why? Particularly when the plaintiffs are already losing most of the tried cases anyways.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Wow...I'm done with this. I don't even know where to start in addressing the ignorance of this post. And it's certainly not worth my time.

And to think just a page ago you were taking a non-response as proof that you were right.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Um, no. Patent trials are heard by ordinary juries, just like other cases (in the exceptionally rare instances in which patent trials are actually heard by a jury). There is a special patent federal circuit, is that what you are thinking of? And that exists because it is constitutionally mandated (and it has nothing to do with the juries).

You don't give juries the credit they are due, either. You act as if they are all high school dropouts. People are perfectly capable of understanding complex issues, and both sides have the opportunity to dismiss jurors they find undesirable. Furthermore, juries are, overall, quite friendly to doctors. The last statistic I saw said that around 70% of all medmal jury trials are resolved in favor of the doctor/insurance company.

And why would we decide that medmal cases should be heard by an "expert" panel? Who are these experts? Doctors? Insurance representatives? Are we trying to stack the deck against the aggrieved? If so, why? Particularly when the plaintiffs are already losing most of the tried cases anyways.

From the first link I found:
"Special courts exist today for workers' compensation, tax and patent disputes, vaccine liability, and in other areas where complex subject matter demands special expertise for dispute resolution."
http://commongood.org/healthcare-rea...-opeds-43.html

You're the attorney--you tell me. Is he making this up?

Sorry..another edit. No, they aren't all high-school dropouts, but the most successful tort cases are awarded in counties of the lowest education level. Sort of a "predatory jury selection", if you will.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

From the first link I found:
"Special courts exist today for workers' compensation, tax and patent disputes, vaccine liability, and in other areas where complex subject matter demands special expertise for dispute resolution."
http://commongood.org/healthcare-rea...-opeds-43.html

You're the attorney--you tell me. Is he making this up?

Sorry..another edit. No, they aren't all high-school dropouts, but the most successful tort cases are awarded in counties of the lowest education level. Sort of a "predatory jury selection", if you will.

The link actually looks like a pretty good summary of the failings of the current system.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You aren't being consistent. On the one hand, you are saying that the old lady died because she wasn't given a CT in time, and would have been but for the logjam at the CT scanner. On the other hand, you are saying that old ladies come through all the time and don't appear to have any extraordinary problems. If so, why would you push them through the CT at all in your perfect world?

You also complain about the higher medical costs you attribute to lawsuits. Then, when presented with an avenue for lowering those costs (by getting another machine where needed), you complain about the higher costs of buying a machine. Well, pick your poison. Medicine isn't a cheap profession. Certainly you knew that going in, right?

If people are dying "all the time" because of a logjam at the CT machine, it seems pretty clear you need another CT machine or you need to get better at determining who should get a CT first. What will encourage doctors to do either? The threat of losing money in a lawsuit.

First paragraph: The doctor's JOB is to evaluate the woman and decide if she needs a CT. The majority don't, a few do. If we can't even get to her because we're messing around with some stupid cover-your-ass-and-try-to-get-the-probability-of-a-miss-down-to-zero head CT on a kid that's fine, that's a problem. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Second paragraph: Getting another machine MAY lower malpractice liability but it raises medical costs for the hospital, which are recouped through, you guessed it, health insurance. CT scanners are extraordinarily expensive. But you're right, this is one method hospitals use to handle the problem. It's also why our number of CT scanners per capita outnumbers European countries by 5:1. It's also a reason why our health care costs are so damn expensive. But thank you for illustrating my point as to how malpractice liability increases healthcare costs.

I seriously can't believe you're arguing this. This needs to be posted on a medical blog. Docs will get a kick out of this...

[YOhio]

Is it too obvious a point to make that for every malpractice verdict, a doctor must agree with the Plaintiff? In MM cases a Plaintiff must provide an expert witness, an MD with the same professional credentials as the Defendant, or it won't get past Summary Judgment. While frivolous cases may be brought, there's always a Doctor willing to stake his reputation on the claim. So, physicians, heal thyself.