"Safe Harbor Laws"

[RustedFox]

From this month's EM News:

http://journals.lww.com/em-news/Ful...se__Safe_Harbor_Law_Could_Help_Defend.13.aspx


A safe harbor is a legal provision that provides liability protection as long as good faith is demonstrated. This act would protect a physician from malpractice liability if providers demonstrate they followed the relevant clinical practice guideline. These clinical practice guidelines would be submitted, maintained, and periodically updated by eligible professional organizations on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Providers would obtain access to the guidelines on the Internet through the National Guideline Clearinghouse.

No financial incentive is provided to physicians who abide by the clinical practice guidelines endorsed through HR 4106, at least not in the way the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and other regulatory statutes mandate compliance through penalties or exclusion from federal health care programs. It provides only a safe harbor of malpractice protection, which does not incentivize providers to utilize clinical practice guidelines. The cost-saving measure of the statute remains to be proven, but the protections should compel providers to order responsibly.


- Thoughts ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Birdstrike]

It's a step in the right direction that it's being talked about. The biggest thing is the concept of developing a medical panel to have a role in determining if the standard of care was followed. My guess is that the plaintiff's attorney lobby, which is much more powerful than the physician lobby, will chew on it like a rabid pit bill making passage very difficult.

"The panel is composed of three members selected by both parties who are experts in the relevant field of practice...The panel will determine if the provider met the standard of care, and if not, whether the provider's negligence proximately caused the patient's injury."

On the other hand, who's on the panel and how are they influenced. We've had members of our own, provide some pretty dubious and damaging testimony lately, haven't we?

On balance, I think it's definitely a positive, though. You?

 

[Vandalia]

There is a downside to malpractice reform - it increases the likelihood of criminal prosecution.

The UK has - to use the US term - a pretty good malpractice environment. However, they also regularly file criminal charges and convict professionals for negligence.

For example, in this case, a surgeon was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for a delay in treating a bowel perforation. In another case a pharmacist was sentenced to 3 months in prison for accidentally dispensing a beta-blocker instead of a steroid.

Here is the scary language:

The judge found Mrs Lee bore no "legal or factual" responsibility for Mrs Sheller's death but passed a three-month suspended prison sentence. He said it was to "mark the gravity of the offence."

I believe in the old phrase "there is no great loss without some small gain." However, I also believe the opposite is true.

 

[gutonc]

I hesitate to say that it can't get worse, because of course, anytime you involve lawyers and politicians, things can certainly get worse...and quickly. But I don't think this would be worse than the status quo (nationwide) at the moment, and it might actually make things a little better.

 

[Birdstrike]

There is a downside to malpractice reform - it increases the likelihood of criminal prosecution.

The UK has - to use the US term - a pretty good malpractice environment. However, they also regularly file criminal charges and convict professionals for negligence.

For example, in this case, a surgeon was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for a delay in treating a bowel perforation. In another case a pharmacist was sentenced to 3 months in prison for accidentally dispensing a beta-blocker instead of a steroid.

Here is the scary language:

The judge found Mrs Lee bore no "legal or factual" responsibility for Mrs Sheller's death but passed a three-month suspended prison sentence. He said it was to "mark the gravity of the offence."

I believe in the old phrase "there is no great loss without some small gain." However, I also believe the opposite is true.

Wow

 

[GeneralVeers]

It would be hard in the U.S. to have a criminal prosecution for malpractice cases. The DA would have to prove negligence, wanton disregard, or malice.

If you are driving a car, and accidentally hit a pedestrian in the street, but are following traffic laws, it would be nearly impossible for them to throw you in jail. If you are impaired at the time, are speeding, go through a red light, or are intentionally trying to hit someone, then it's jail time.

 

[gutonc]

If you are driving a car, and accidentally hit a pedestrian in the street, but are following traffic laws, it would be nearly impossible for them to throw you in jail. If you are impaired at the time, are speeding, go through a red light, or are intentionally trying to hit someone, then it's jail time.

Unless you hit a cyclist. In which case you get a high five from the chief of police and a key to the city from the mayor.

But that's neither here nor there.