thanks man. I don't have fox (in cville so not much here), but can you or do you know where to get a transcript?G-Man said:A show on Fox News tonight at 9 pm ET called "Breaking Point". All should watch and post your thoughts in the lounge thread under same title.
My understanding is that in the vast majority of cases, the jury decides in favour of the doctor. Also, there are statistics regarding how doctor-patient interactions affect malpractice, and it turns out that doctors who spend more time interviewing patients and doctors who are viewed as "caring about the patient" are less likely to get sued, regardless of outcome.Moocow2011 said:It's troubling, but a doctor doesn't have to make a mistake to lose a malpractice case. If the lawyer is good enough, the lawyer can make a strong emotional appeal to the jury and back his story up with some other doctor ("expert witness"). The lawyer may not win every time, but if there are many lawsuits, good doctors will eventually lose. California has a malpractice cap, and it works (relative to, say, Pennsylvania).
Citizen.org is a very sad liberal outfit.juddson said:One ought not get his or her information from Fox News.
yes yes. It's all statistics-any one of which is open to debate, twisting, etc. But the AMA seems particularly disgusting in this regard, right? $3.5 average jury award when the median is only about $1 million. THAT gives the wrong impression. Not only that, it includes (most dishonestly) awards against large corporations like hospitals and medical device manufacturers, and not just doctors (no doubt the reason why the average is skewed so high upwards - there would have to be some HUGE awards neer the top). And ONLY using Jury Verdict to report data. Dishonest.MacGyver said:There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Med mal is colored by which statistics you use. There are only about 3,432 statistics related to med malpractice issues.
What we need is a measure of what percentage of doctors get sued. I know that 100% of all neurosurgeons in Mississippi have been sued at least once. I'm sure there are high numbers depending on specialties across the country.
I know the lawyers like to point out that 5% of docs are responsible for like 90% of all med mal payouts. That number is meaningless unless you also know the percentage of all doctors sued.
Couldn't agree more. You need to see BOTH sides of this issue. Unfortunatetly, we only get one side on these forums (for obvious reasons).beastmaster said:One ought to listen to a diverstity of opinion and make up their own mind.
Well, agreed that you need to evaluate each issue individually. Not asking anybody to agree with every issue (nor, i would hope, would we be asked to agree with every issue on some conservative group's agenda). Look at the data, read the analysis, decide for yourself.beastmaster said:I'm not here to make big arguments and enter debates.
The group very openly advocates hugely increased government regulation of practically every bailiwick they discuss. There are even copies of petition letters stating their position available for all to mail to their congressmen. The selectively post news releases to support only their point of view. I won't start posting links, as that gets cumbersome, but it is not difficult to carve out their agenda amidst the guise of purported "public interest." That's not to say they are wrong on all issues, but on several (not necessarily med malpractice; I'm evaluating them on issues I'm more intimately familiar with).
Agreed. Awesome idea. No complaints from me or the trial lobby, I am guessing. Doctors would HATE to have this opened up EVEN WITH the data you are suggesting. For god's sake, only like 15 state medical boards list meaningful information on disciplinary actions against thier doctors.MacGyver said:I think we should open up the NPDB. However, I also think that new information should be added to the NPDB. It should have all of the following:
Total number of lawsuits FILED against that doctor.
Total number of lawsuits that WENT TO TRIAL against that doctor
Total number of lawsuits SETTLED against that doctor
Total settlement PAYOUTS by that doctor
Total legal fees SPENT by the doctor/insurance company
Total amount and number of TRIAL AWARDS against the doctor
Listing of all state medical board actions regarding the doctor (all states included, not just current state of practice)
The NPDB should also have summary tables to compare that doctor against his colleagues. It should have national, regional, state, and county, and city breakdowns.
This is the kind of "common wisdom" that seems evident on its face. It's not clear to me that it is true, though. I think premiums are set by risk class, and while a loss will affect that class significantly, I don't think a win has that much effect. Some doctors have been sued 15 times or more and they still have insurance (because they win). Your scenario would price them out of the market completely.Goober said:The problem with getting sued and winning or having the case dropped against you is you still lose. Every time you get sued your insurance rates will go up regardless of the outcome. If you don't think that is a big deal consider that in many states doctors in high risk specialites are paying 100-150k/year to be insured. If they raise it 20% you have to pay another 20-30K
If you get sued enough times your insurance will drop you even if you never have a judgement against you. In almost all states you do not have recourse if this happens. If you get dropped by an insurance company, you will find it incredibly difficult to find another one that will take you.
I read the Nader document you reference. It is bunk. It contradicts itself all over...juddson said:Oh that sucks. Must have screwed up the link.
Try this one.
juddson said:This is the kind of "common wisdom" that seems evident on its face. It's not clear to me that it is true, though. I think premiums are set by risk class, and while a loss will affect that class significantly, I don't think a win has that much effect. Some doctors have been sued 15 times or more and they still have insurance (because they win). Your scenario would price them out of the market completely.
If you'll notice, that article was written by lawyers and politicians! Go figure that it goes on to say that medical malpractice suits are not frivolous.juddson said:Oh that sucks. Must have screwed up the link.
Try this one.