Al is right. Healthcare reform has now become Health Insurance/Insurers reform. There are two major drivers of the COST of medical care: 1) defensive medicine and mandated benefits, and 2) Cost shifting. Government has historically lowered the cost of Medicare/Medicaid without doing anything to lower the “actual” cost of care; they simply shift it individuals and private insurers. The actual cost must be paid by someone, and that someone is “you and me” either out of my pocket or out of the pocket of private insurers. There is no political will or incentive to control the drivers of healthcare costs. Another way would be for everyone to simply self-insure; which would be financially ruinous to the average American who has something to lose. The debate is being controlled by those who want to control, and I’m not talking about the control of healthcare costs.
First, to reduce the number of defensive tests ordered by physicians there must be an expectation that there is a resultant commenserate reduction in the number of suits filed or exposure to damages being sought. Otherwise redundant or excessive tests will continue, since once a suit is under way it is twenty/twenty hindsight that will determine whether the professional standard for treatment was met, with all of the attendant second guessing that goes with it, i.e., was every possible diagnosis made, no matter how unlikely or extreme, no expense spared?
Secondly, as to life time medical care, (exclusive of general damages, etc.), would this not be available as part of most medical insurance plans, with or without the “public option”? Subrogating these amounts based upon fault via arbitration or civil lawsuit would be much less subject to emotion and hyperbole than trying the patient’s cause directly.
Lastly, I am rather cynical about our elected representative actually coming up with anything of practical value in this regard, given the horse-trading, lobbying and contributions that will inevitably control the process.
California got Tort Reform but healthcare costs have still continued to shoot up. So why are we supposed to believe Federal level Tort Reform will create any new savings? There is all this debate as to whether or not it’s fair but even before that, does it work? Will these savings ever get passed on through lower costs to employers and individuals? I haven’t seen it yet.
the doctor who orders mri instead of x-ray because of fear of a lawsuit may not stop ordering an mri because he’s a partner in the business or stockholder. I would want my doctor to rule out things rather than a doctor goes with his primary explanation of my bad back due to muscular or bone issues! Doctors have more tools to be accurate in their diaganosis and should use what is needed!
It’s good medicine and best for his client.
Great Article. I urge all who read to forward this to your senators and representative’s and hope they READ IT!!!!
It is sad that we have to keep educating these folks!!!!!
Fritz is correct in his view. California passed, some years ago, statutory caps on medical malpractice claims for pain and suffering, and procedural barriers before a suit can actually be filed, but doctors’ medical fees have not dropped.
It’s also true that, whatever the reason,the profession is more cautious about diagnosis and relies more on the latest scientific instrumentation to determine treatment courses. Is this a bad thing?
The “trial lawyers” are set up as straw men to divert attention from fundamental problems in a delivery system that relies on private insurance and the need for huge profits to satisfy shareholders and executives.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Al is right. Healthcare reform has now become Health Insurance/Insurers reform. There are two major drivers of the COST of medical care: 1) defensive medicine and mandated benefits, and 2) Cost shifting. Government has historically lowered the cost of Medicare/Medicaid without doing anything to lower the “actual” cost of care; they simply shift it individuals and private insurers. The actual cost must be paid by someone, and that someone is “you and me” either out of my pocket or out of the pocket of private insurers. There is no political will or incentive to control the drivers of healthcare costs. Another way would be for everyone to simply self-insure; which would be financially ruinous to the average American who has something to lose. The debate is being controlled by those who want to control, and I’m not talking about the control of healthcare costs.
First, to reduce the number of defensive tests ordered by physicians there must be an expectation that there is a resultant commenserate reduction in the number of suits filed or exposure to damages being sought. Otherwise redundant or excessive tests will continue, since once a suit is under way it is twenty/twenty hindsight that will determine whether the professional standard for treatment was met, with all of the attendant second guessing that goes with it, i.e., was every possible diagnosis made, no matter how unlikely or extreme, no expense spared?
Secondly, as to life time medical care, (exclusive of general damages, etc.), would this not be available as part of most medical insurance plans, with or without the “public option”? Subrogating these amounts based upon fault via arbitration or civil lawsuit would be much less subject to emotion and hyperbole than trying the patient’s cause directly.
Lastly, I am rather cynical about our elected representative actually coming up with anything of practical value in this regard, given the horse-trading, lobbying and contributions that will inevitably control the process.
California got Tort Reform but healthcare costs have still continued to shoot up. So why are we supposed to believe Federal level Tort Reform will create any new savings? There is all this debate as to whether or not it’s fair but even before that, does it work? Will these savings ever get passed on through lower costs to employers and individuals? I haven’t seen it yet.
the doctor who orders mri instead of x-ray because of fear of a lawsuit may not stop ordering an mri because he’s a partner in the business or stockholder. I would want my doctor to rule out things rather than a doctor goes with his primary explanation of my bad back due to muscular or bone issues! Doctors have more tools to be accurate in their diaganosis and should use what is needed!
It’s good medicine and best for his client.
Great Article. I urge all who read to forward this to your senators and representative’s and hope they READ IT!!!!
It is sad that we have to keep educating these folks!!!!!
Fritz is correct in his view. California passed, some years ago, statutory caps on medical malpractice claims for pain and suffering, and procedural barriers before a suit can actually be filed, but doctors’ medical fees have not dropped.
It’s also true that, whatever the reason,the profession is more cautious about diagnosis and relies more on the latest scientific instrumentation to determine treatment courses. Is this a bad thing?
The “trial lawyers” are set up as straw men to divert attention from fundamental problems in a delivery system that relies on private insurance and the need for huge profits to satisfy shareholders and executives.