As the title suggests, I disagree w/ the bird brains running North Carolina’s medical negligence reporting data base.
We already have long since established a National Medical Claims Reporting database which requires reporting “significant cases”.
Long long ago in California, the reporting threshold was 2500 (hundred) and was then raised to 30,000 as no right thinking Doc would consent to settle the low number nuisance cases as their professional reputation was on the line. It was still tough to gain consent to settle at 30,000, but possible when expeditious compromise seemed in the Doc’s best interests.
I would agree to a networked reporting data base to be closely held and furnished only to accredited hospital crentialing committee folks.
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.
As the title suggests, I disagree w/ the bird brains running North Carolina’s medical negligence reporting data base.
We already have long since established a National Medical Claims Reporting database which requires reporting “significant cases”.
Long long ago in California, the reporting threshold was 2500 (hundred) and was then raised to 30,000 as no right thinking Doc would consent to settle the low number nuisance cases as their professional reputation was on the line. It was still tough to gain consent to settle at 30,000, but possible when expeditious compromise seemed in the Doc’s best interests.
I would agree to a networked reporting data base to be closely held and furnished only to accredited hospital crentialing committee folks.