Protecting physicians and hospitals with Arbitration in place of lawsuits

[woolie]

In another thread people were discussing the rise of lawsuits and the high cost it carries for physicians and hospitals. Someone suggested: wouldn't it be great if patients were forced to sign a waiver agreeing to not sue their physicians.

Here in Utah, Intermountain Hospital Corp, the largest hospital system in the area is now forcing patients to sign a formal waiver, agreeing to not sue the physicians or the hospital but to undergo arbitration. If the patient chooses not to sign the form, they are denied services. So far it's just for the Salt Lake area, but it is expected to become statewide.

http://www.ihc.com/xp/ihc/aboutihc/news/article8.xml

It's an interesting situation. I personally think it is a great idea, because the lawsuit thing has gotten totally out of hand. The IHC is owned by the LDS Church (or was orginally), and it really provides outstanding care, and loads of charity work. I don't know it this would work in Philadelphia, say or the Boston area, but it seems to be accepted here for the most part.

Any other future doctors have any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[steve007]

i think arbitration is a great idea. let impartial EXPERTS decide who's right and who's wrong. Now, if they can do that and cap pain and suffering awards, we'll really be getting somewhere.

 

[periodic]

I think those changes would have to go hand-in-hand with mechanisms to encourage and ensure reporting of medical errors. The vast majority of errors _aren't_ reported (over 90%) and taken forward by the patients.

We need a system where these errors aren't swept under the table, but hospitals and physicians aren't made bankrupt in compensating patients for avoidable harm. The IOM report on medical errors found that most are the result of structural deficiencies (someone misreads a physician's handwriting, information doesn't flow to the right people at the right time, etc).