karizma098

Neon Tiger
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Dec 8, 2005
489
2
0
Status
Medical Student
We had a speaker come to our school and speak about malpractice after the current health reform takes place. a student asked about the potential implications this has for malpractice, to which she basically replied:

1.) although it's bad, keeping people with 'pre existing conditions' and other serious illnesses out of the health insurance game protects doctors. these patients are more prone to have complications, complaints, and die from their illness. once they are 'insured' or required to be 'insured' they have full rights to sue their physician. there will be increased lawsuits towards physicians, as patient outcome for these patients can't always be good.

2.) bringing 30 million more people into the health insurance market-many of these are people who refused to purchase insurance on their own before - even if they were driving 30 thousand dollar cars or taking yearly vacations. These people are now going to be paying for health insurance, and are much more likely to utilize it if it's coming out of their pocket. the speaker also felt that they are much more likely to sue a doctor for a quick buck.

3.) 30 more million customers = 30 more million opportunities to get sued. even for those patients who genuinely couldn't pay for insurance before and will benefit from healthcare tax breaks and government expanded care, it will undoubtedly bring more lawsuits into the market.

this trifecta will inevitably lead to increased malpractice.

thoughts?
 

Arch Guillotti

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Aug 8, 2001
7,594
1,332
581
Status
Attending Physician
1.) although it's bad, keeping people with 'pre existing conditions' and other serious illnesses out of the health insurance game protects doctors. these patients are more prone to have complications, complaints, and die from their illness. once they are 'insured' or required to be 'insured' they have full rights to sue their physician. there will be increased lawsuits towards physicians, as patient outcome for these patients can't always be good.
This doesn't make any sense to me.

There are plenty of people with pre-existing conditions, many of whom have insurance and many of whom do not.

What does being insured have to do with your ability to sue doctors?
 

pgg

Laugh at me, will they?
Administrator
10+ Year Member
Dec 15, 2005
11,892
7,414
481
Home Again
Status
Attending Physician
30 more million customers = 30 more million opportunities to get sued
This seems a lot like Home Depot saying, "oh, curse our wretched luck, we have a million new customers, some are going to slip in the garden center and sue us!"

I don't know how seriously I take those malpractice prognostications. :)
 

karizma098

Neon Tiger
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Dec 8, 2005
489
2
0
Status
Medical Student
I guess her gist was the following:

1) the newly covered people who now have insurance, many of them would have otherwise not been going to the physician in the first place. amongst these, the ones with pre-existing conditions that were 'denied' coverage or did not have coverage for cost related reasons are likely to have complicated medical conditions. when they seek treatment, they are more likely to run into complications, or die from their underlying disease. patients with a poorer prognosis/ patients unhappy with their outcome are more likely to sue, thats what i got out of that point.

2.) the influx of new customers into the system brings more people --> more customers = more lawsuits, statistically.

3.)you absolutely don't need healthcare to sue a physician, but you're a lot more likely to if you've got coverage you're paying for than if youre going to the ER for a head cold and running out on the bill. i think that was the jist of that point.

in any case, i'm also hoping none of this pans out, just thought she brought up a few interesting points.
 
Last edited:

jwk

CAA, ASA-PAC Contributor
10+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2004
3,598
683
281
Atlanta, GA
I guess her jist was the following:

1) the newly covered people who now have insurance, many of them would have otherwise not been going to the physician in the first place. amongst these, the ones with pre-existing conditions that were 'denied' coverage or did not have coverage for cost related reasons are likely to have complicated medical conditions. when they seek treatment, they are more likely to run into complications, or die from their underlying disease. patients with a poorer prognosis/ patients unhappy with their outcome are more likely to sue, thats what i got out of that point.

2.) the influx of new customers into the system brings more people --> more customers = more lawsuits, statistically.

3.)you absolutely don't need healthcare to sue a physician, but you're a lot more likely to if you've got coverage you're paying for than if youre going to the ER for a head cold and running out on the bill. i think that was the jist of that point.

in any case, i'm also hoping none of this pans out, just thought she brought up a few interesting points.
Lack of health insurance has never stopped anyone from suing. Lack of insurance doesn't stop people from getting healthcare either (think Cook Co. Hospital or Grady) since millions upon millions of patients still manage to get healthcare each year.

Your "speaker" needs to work on some facts instead of presenting baseless opinions as facts.
 

leaverus

New Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 23, 2004
576
154
381
Nowhere in particular
Visit site
Status
We had a speaker come to our school and speak about malpractice after the current health reform takes place. a student asked about the potential implications this has for malpractice, to which she basically replied:
What i don't understand is why a student would need to ask about the potential implications for malpractice when the speaker was there in the first place to talk about the potential implications for malpractice.

Also, don't take it the wrong way but it's "gist" not "jist."
 

karizma098

Neon Tiger
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Dec 8, 2005
489
2
0
Status
Medical Student
We had a speaker come to our school and speak about malpractice after the current health reform takes place. a student asked about the potential implications this has for malpractice, to which she basically replied:
What i don't understand is why a student would need to ask about the potential implications for malpractice when the speaker was there in the first place to talk about the potential implications for malpractice.

Also, don't take it the wrong way but it's "gist" not "jist."
hey, i didn't take it the wrong way at all,

i'm usually proficient with my grammar but typing on the iphone makes things difficult sometimes!

she was actually here to talk about the current state of malpractice, what to expect, how it works, what it entails, etc.

a student asked about how malpractice may change under the new health reform. she expanded on that with what her personal opinion was. i'm definitely not up to speed on how malpractice works , which is why i posted on here asking you all what you thought.

a few of us were actually a bit rattled at the thought of paying more malpractice than we already do ( especially here in illinois ), so i'm hoping you're all right, and her outlook is off.

as a side note, i agree completely with your claim of 'lack of insurance' not stopping people from getting healthcare. Stroger is flooded with patients who have no healthcare. i believe her point was just that it's rare for people without insurance - and those that don't pay for the care in the first place, to sue. ( once again, an opinion not a fact. )
 

Masseter Spasm

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
May 5, 2007
136
4
141
Status
Attending Physician
Large financial settlements are typically relatively healthy individuals presenting for routine surgery who suffer a catastrophic injury (e.g. brain death). ASA IV patients who suffer minor-moderate complications during major surgery are usually less of a threat.