Comments on: Unnecessary Medical Testing

By: Barbara

Barbara — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:15:48 +0000

So, does that mean there is no one to “turn in” the doctors’ office to for scamming patients?

By: Gammy

Gammy — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:38:21 +0000

Every doctor visit to renew my ADHD meds, they make me take a ‘pee test’ & charge me $40 every time! This has been ongoing for three years now, & EVERY time, the test comes back negative. Is this a racket, or what? I have no medical insurance, and this is a BIG chunck of my income.

By: Patient

Patient — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:39:22 +0000

What a ridiculous rant. Decent doctors can quickly identify those tests that are required versus the borderline tests versus the unnecessary testing.

How about including the patient in the decision making process by providing factual information and allow the patient to make a FULLY INFORMED decision that includes how much the tests costs and alternatives to the testing. It’s ridiculous how much hospitals charge patients and to make these decisions without involving the patient while leaving them with 100% of the financial liability.

By: SeaSpray

SeaSpray — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:44:48 +0000

Nothing like a little light reading before bed. Well now I can skip the melatonin!

Actually ..this is interesting… getting an inside look at physicians and lawyers perspectives.

Wish I had something worthwhile to contribute. Just taking it all in.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:20:36 +0000

“I do know that in my state 78% of all medmal suits end with no payment to the plaintiff and of the cases that go to trial over 80% are decided for the defense.”

That could mean a lot of things. One possibility is that ~80% of suits do not involve provable negligence.

Another possibility is that juries and/or judges are, to some degree, biased against medical malpractice plaintiffs.

Another possibility is that standards for proving malpractice are too strict, but that lawyers have not come to terms with that, and are too optimistic.

Or some combination of those three and other possibilities. Correlation != causation.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:02:39 +0000

That’s an editorial about one narrow subset of the law-workers comp. I thought you were going to give me something more substantive. Workers comp is a purely statutory creation. Now, if physicians want to advocate no fault for medical errors let’s talk. But otherwise I dont know how much you can extrapolate to a larger point to other civil litigation. Maybe quite a bit but we aren’t given enough info to tell.

As far as the bulk of your premiums going toward cases with no payment to the plaintiff, again I would ask to se the financial statements. And do you mean cases filed or overall claims?

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:59:59 +0000

Here is another:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba673

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:59:12 +0000

Here is more:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba673

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:52:41 +0000

Matt:

As you say, things are searchable. Here is one of many articles that explain the effects of Florida’s reform.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Is-Tort-Reform-the-Answer_-8315531-62718957.html

I have no problem with malpractice insurance covering malpractice. What I have a problem with is the insurnace having to cover the costs of the vast majority of cases that end with no payment to the plaintiff.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:13:09 +0000

Also with Florida you said liability premiums had dropped considerably – can you give me the various dates of the drop and how much? Also, was it more or less than states without such reforms? I often see the claim made in states with caps that premiums fell, but then when you look at states without caps you see that they fell or rose nationwide regardless of caps. Which isn’t surprising considering the tie to the overall economy.