Spicy snack foods sending children to the emergency room, experts claim

[montana 89]

 

 

 

This!

[tikigods 76]

This is far too simplistic. Get back to me when you actually field some calls from sick people.

 

I get the feeling you don't want to hear about tort reform and how it correlates to malpractice and the AMA lobby in Congress.

 

libtards.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

I get the feeling you don't want to hear about tort reform and how it correlates to malpractice and the AMA lobby in Congress.

 

libtards.

I like the idea of tort reform, but to my knowledge it hasn't curtailed medical expenditures when implemented. Educate me.

 

And seriously, do you believe you know better why phone calls are deferred to the ER than someone who has actually answered the calls?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I like the idea of tort reform, but to my knowledge it hasn't curtailed medical expenditures when implemented. Educate me.

 

And seriously, do you believe you know better why phone calls are deferred to the ER than someone who has actually answered the calls?

People wildly overestimate the impact tort reform would have. They hear of a few huge lawsuits and think that's the norm as opposed to an outlier.

 

Studies I've read of typically guesstimate about a 2-3% impact on overall healthcare costs.

 

IMO it's not nearly worth under compensating certain real victims and taking away that disincentive for employing awful doctors (unfortunately there are bad apples in every profession).

 

I don't do medical malpractice but I suppose I'm still biased because of my general profession.

[DankNuggs 305]

People wildly overestimate the impact tort reform would have. They hear of a few huge lawsuits and think that's the norm as opposed to an outlier.

 

Studies I've read of typically guesstimate about a 2-3% impact on overall healthcare costs.

 

IMO it's not nearly worth under compensating certain real victims and taking away that disincentive for employing awful doctors (unfortunately there are bad apples in every profession).

 

I don't do medical malpractice but I suppose I'm still biased because of my general profession.

Ya, everyone says they love tort reform until they are the victim of a botched procedure and are told they can't be compensated because its for the good of the system....

[penultimatestraw 473]

People wildly overestimate the impact tort reform would have. They hear of a few huge lawsuits and think that's the norm as opposed to an outlier.

 

Studies I've read of typically guesstimate about a 2-3% impact on overall healthcare costs.

 

IMO it's not nearly worth under compensating certain real victims and taking away that disincentive for employing awful doctors (unfortunately there are bad apples in every profession).

 

I don't do medical malpractice but I suppose I'm still biased because of my general profession.

I don't think tort reform will change practice much, at least not right away. Defensive medicine has been ingrained in our system for decades.

 

But it's not just awful doctors getting sued: the vast majority of doctors will be sued over the course of their career, though the majority of lawsuits are thrown out. This suggests some tort reform is in order.

We analyzed malpractice data from 1991 through 2005 for all physicians who were covered by a large professional liability insurer with a nationwide client base (40,916 physicians and 233,738 physician-years of coverage). For 25 specialties, we reported the proportion of physicians who had malpractice claims in a year, the proportion of claims leading to an indemnity payment (compensation paid to a plaintiff), and the size of indemnity payments. We estimated the cumulative risk of ever being sued among physicians in high- and low-risk specialties.

 

Results

Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants). The proportion of physicians facing a claim each year ranged from 19.1% in neurosurgery, 18.9% in thoracic–cardiovascular surgery, and 15.3% in general surgery to 5.2% in family medicine, 3.1% in pediatrics, and 2.6% in psychiatry. The mean indemnity payment was $274,887, and the median was $111,749. Mean payments ranged from $117,832 for dermatology to $520,923 for pediatrics. It was estimated that by the age of 65 years, 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim, as compared with 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I don't think tort reform will change practice much, at least not right away. Defensive medicine has been ingrained in our system for decades.

 

But it's not just awful doctors getting sued: the vast majority of doctors will be sued over the course of their career, though the majority of lawsuits are thrown out. This suggests some tort reform is in order.

So what's wrong with the bolded? I know it sucks getting sued but as long as frivolous cases aren't proceeding I don't really see the issue. Yes it costs money to defend any suit but that's what insurance is for. I don't see how preventing people from filing valid suits is a good response.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Texas passed a "Loser pays" bill, so people think twice about bringing BS suits because they will be on the hook for their costs, the defendants costs, court costs, etc.....

[penultimatestraw 473]

So what's wrong with the bolded? I know it sucks getting sued but as long as frivolous cases aren't proceeding I don't really see the issue. Yes it costs money to defend any suit but that's what insurance is for. I don't see how preventing people from filing valid suits is a good response.

I never said people with valid suits should be prevented from seeking legal recourse. But there is a lot of wasted time and money spent on the frivolous suits, and a physician's career can be jeopardized purely for being named in a suit. Surely we can limit the BS without preventing legitimate lawsuits?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I never said people with valid suits should be prevented from seeking legal recourse. But there is a lot of wasted time and money spent on the frivolous suits, and a physician's career can be jeopardized purely for being named in a suit. Surely we can limit the BS without preventing legitimate lawsuits?

How?

 

Write a law that says you can be sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit? Pretty much every jurisdiction already has that rule.

 

Problem is that it's often tough to distinguish a suit that is truly frivolous from one that may be valid but is simply unlikely to prevail.

 

And the further you move the line towards the latter, the more you discourage meritorious suits because people are afraid of getting slammed for filing said suit.

 

Perhaps there is a good solution out there but it ain't gonna be easy to find.

[edjr 6,908]

Texas passed a "Loser pays" bill

 

you must be screwed.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,629]

 Posted twelve years ago today reminding that it dont all change up in here

[edjr 6,908]

On 11/21/2013 at 6:59 PM, Recliner Pilot said:

Texas passed a "Loser pays" bill, so people think twice about bringing BS suits because they will be on the hook for their costs, the defendants costs, court costs, etc.....

Remember when you didn't get banned and turn into HT?

[HellToupee 2,279]

On 11/20/2013 at 3:32 AM, ROCKFORD said:

can we get back to the cheetoes?

One of the top posters here

[edjr 6,908]

On 11/18/2013 at 11:06 AM, Phurfur said:

I died