March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« The F is for futility | Main | Troublemaking »

Jan 01, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeffrey Sykes

We should tie that to tort reform so the insurance premiums for doctors will go down and they can in turn not have to fear being sued every month and in turn won't have to fear taking on government-insured patients.

Leila

Hey, and why don't we have a network of government funded storefront health clinics staffed with nurse practitioners to deal with all the low-hanging fruit issues that clog up our emergency rooms? We'd save oodles in hospital bills and in larger costs for problems prevented early.

This would be prudent preparation for flu pandemic, as well.

RB

NYT:"You’re dealing with two very different countries. We were founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were founded on peace, order and good government. It’s a difference of values.”

So what's the AMA'a take ?
JAMA:The United States alone treats health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a social service to be distributed according to medical need.

The CA

Ed, what is your opinion on tort reform?

Ed Cone

I'm really not very informed on it, and would hesitate to make a sweeping pronouncement.

Obviously frivolous lawsuits and disproportionate awards are a problem in and of themselves, apart from any impact on healthcare economics. Then again, I've seen it argued that lawsuits are a necessary weapon for individuals when corporate influence waxes overstrong in the legislative process.

My guess is that malpractice tort reform, however desirable, is not the key stumbling block to meaningful healthcare improvements in this country. This report, for example, says that in 2003, "medical
malpractice costs translated to $91 per
person. This compares to $5 per person
in 1975 (not adjusted for inflation)." That's a big jump, but a small fraction of the cost disparities between the US and other countries documented in the links above.

Dr. Mary Johnson

I'm very informed.

But as I'm probably one of those commenters who you/JR think doesn't add anything "constructive" to the conversation, I'll limit my sweeping pronouncement to this: If the medical profession cannot do a better job of policing its own . . . starting with (1) lifting at least some of the the veil of secrecy and absolute immunity off the process (which generally serves to facilitate cover-ups), (2) ensuring due process for accused doctors while protecting doctors and nurses who blow the whistle/sign their names, and (3) holding the outside forces that hold so much sway over the lives and practice of physicians (like insurance companies and hospital executives and lawyers) accountable to the same ethical standards that doctors are held . . . tort reform, is not going to happen.

The public will not buy it. And I'm not sure I'd want them too.

The AMA's take is to keep the secrecy and the immunity . . . to let the medical whistleblowers swing (as I did) . . . and to maintain the status quo for everybody else except the lawyers who advocate for (genuinely - key word) injured patients.

It's a big mess.

I'm going back to my blog now. I made a resolution too.

Bubba

"....we’d have a Medicare-like system for everyone, paid for by a dedicated tax that for most people would be less than they or their employers currently pay in insurance premiums. This would, at a stroke, cover the uninsured, greatly reduce administrative costs and make it much easier to work on preventive care."

Only if you believe in magic.

When was the last time a new, major government initiative reduced individual and administrative costs, simplified the process of service, and was responsive to the needs of both payors and users?

What makes anybody thing that this particular program would be any different?

RB

So don't even try, huh, Bubba ?

Well I'm guessing you don't have much invested in this area: young(er), good health, no imminent health issues. No wife or kids with health isues.

That could have been my own health profile up to a few years ago.

Things are different now.
I had cancer therapy and surgery in '04. There have been consequences.

So my investment is most likely higher than yours. Your POV is pretty empty IMO.

I'd like to see a change. Let the chips fall where they may.

The *only* way to know though, is to try !

Roch101

"young(er), good health, no imminent health issues."

Bubba is a veteran.

RB

"Bubba is a veteran." I am also.
Still, I'm not on the same page as you Roch...

RB

Nevermind Roch, I just reread his blog bio.

Roch101

Bubba is against "government" health care, but he's got his (as he should, as should you).

Bubba

"So don't even try, huh, Bubba ?

Well I'm guessing you don't have much invested in this area: young(er), good health, no imminent health issues. No wife or kids with health isues."

You guessed wrong on all counts.

I don't know you, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.Bubba is against "government" health care, but he's got his (as he should, as should you).

Unlike the poster of this.....

Bubba is against "government" health care, but he's got his (as he should, as should you)."

......who is undoubtedly irrelevant, as usual.

If you want to debate facts and issues, let's do so.

Otherwise, I think we are done here.

RB

Yup, Bubba, I was wrong. Couldn't have been much more wrong, I don't think.

But that's also irrelevant.

The comments to this entry are closed.