Malpractice: Savings Reconsidered »
Posted By engineer 3 weeks, 5 days ago in Health & FitnessIn 2004 we accused President Bush of using dubious statistics to support his claim that limiting malpractice awards to injured patients could save the economy between $60 billion and $108 billion per year. Ever since, we've said most independent research indicated little if any savings from limiting malpractice liability, and just a few weeks ago ...
Read Full Story at wordpress.asc.upenn.edu »
111 Views Share Story 7 Comments Report
Submitted By:
engineer
Hi
My background is Biomedical engineering with an MBA As you know from all my comments where I almost stand politically. I have loads of ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 7 (view all)
-
100%
engineer3 weeks, 5 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This study shows that malpractice has a negligible impact on health care costs
Reply
FTA
"Citing recent studies, including two new economic papers published only last month, CBO concludes that limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent, or about $11 billion this year. That would save taxpayers about $41 billion over the next decade in lower Medicare, Medicaid and other federal spending for health care."
This is less than 0.2% -
100%
Will13133 weeks, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes . not much. health care costs are no significantly less in states that already have caps. ..
Reply
but to the ones that want a cap..
these things don't always happen to THE OTHER GUY
how much would it be worth to YOU PERSONALLY
if
a doctor
REMOVED THE WRONG BREAST OR TESTICLE .. a healthy one. but still has to remove the diseased one..
HOW MUCH. .. IF IT HAPPENED TO YOU
put a $ figure.. -
100%
CHAM3 weeks, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Ridiculous claim by Republicans and Conservatives that Malpractice denial - and this is what they want, would reduce the cost of Health Care significantly is rubbish.
Reply
What the Annenberg Foundation claims 1/2 of 1% amounts to 50 cents of every $100 dollars you spend for Health Care. Think about that. So that they can get an extra 50 cents from you they want you to give your right to sue a doctor for wrongdoing. How asinine can some people be.
And the Insurance Industry and their Staunch supporters, the Republican Party have no limitations on their own greed. They don't give a damn whether patients have any rights just as long as they can get that extra 50 cents.
Wise people would tell them to go to hell.
You think the Republican faithful will do that? The leaders won't because they are rotten to the core, the rank and file won't because they are stuck on stupid while supporting the Party. Lord would you give those people some wisdom?
See if you can get them to become Americans first.
( And I might point out that they are a Right Wing support group - take a look at their board of Directory and their donors )-
Neutral
chevydog3 weeks, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we just last week on Propeller discussing the 37% of supposed "waste" in the health care system that is a result of doctors prescribing testing strictly to avoid the possibility of lawsuits? This amounts to something over $200 billion. Those figures were provided by Prez O's spokesmen.
Reply
Now I can believe that there is no significant impact if one is looking at direct awards. But doctors performing testing to avoid lawsuits doesn't fit this category; and it's always problematic when you ask "would you do this if...".
My belief is that people who don't think that this is a factor are deliberately tyrying to take human nature out of the equation. Don't think it's in the least realistic to believe that one's behavior wouldn't change depending on whether there was "infinite penalty" or "no penalty".
Logic tells you that if there would be "infinite penalty", someone would tend to do more to avoid that possibility. If someone came to me with a draft report that said otherwise, I'd tell them to go back because they obviously missed something, and it doesn't even pass the laugh test.
That having been said, do I believe that it's the entire answer? No. Do I believe it should be part of the anwer? -- yes. In what form? -dunno.
-
-
100%
fsev413 weeks, 4 days ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not too long ago I read an article which I can't locate right now. It spoke of a program at a major metropolitan hospital where each malpractice claim was not turned over to insurance companies immediately. Instead the claim was reviewed by a board and if they felt there was any fault by hospital or doctor an apology and a financial settlement was offered. It dramatically reduced the number of claims litigated. The only ones that lost in the plan were the attorneys that profited from the litigation and the "expert witnesses" paid to support each side of the argument. Sounded like an excellent way to reduce malpractice costs.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.