Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (101122)	8/21/2009 3:10:49 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 116555

Medical malpractice suits in Australia are substantially identical in size and scope to those in America, with a subtle difference which make a big difference in the Dollar amounts listed in the headlines of each lawsuit. The largest portion of malpractice settlements in America goes to pay a lump-sum for the estimated costs of the lifetime care of an injured patient who will need continued care, say because they are now a paraplegic, or will need lifetime dialysis. When your lifetime of medical care is already paid for by Australian Medicare, or through a reciprocal arrangement in Europe if you move or visit there, you're only suing for that care which will not already being provided. So the headline numbers in malpractice suits are much smaller for this reason alone. So taxpayers pay for the long term care instead of the malpractice insurers. In America if you're insured by Anthem Blue Cross, they are very aggressive about wanting a big cash settlement from your Doctor and their malpractice insurance to offset the extra lifetime costs Blue Cross will incur to provide for you. Blue Cross will sue the a patient to recover their costs, and in some cases will join the lawsuit against the health care provider. In Australia neither Medicare nor the private medical insurance companies seek a cash settlement from the medical provider which caused malpractice - although they're far more aggressive about restricting or revoking their license than in America. The concern about malpractice by Medicare in Australia is also far more focused on reducing actual malpractice rather than placing any limits on the ability of patients to sue. My impression is that Australian Medicare is also far more eager to settle legitimate claims rather than hiring crack legal teams to claim the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. Many Australians may not believe this, as there was a recent problem in Queensland of a Doctor whose license was revoked in America but hired in Queensland without sufficient investigation into his background. But problem providers can hush things up far more easily in America often with the eerie participation of the hospital which itself is all lawyered up. In Australia the cost of the mistakes keep hitting the same Medicare provider, so it get noticed. New Zealand with a notoriously mean medical care system in many ways, very small drug formularies etc, treat malpractice much like a Workman's Comp claim with a fixed payout formula. Most really sick New Zealanders relocate to Australia simply to get appropriate medical care. Some Australian Doctors drool over the very restricted kiwi malpractice awards, but on the other hand hardly any have moved there which would be easy if they preferred the lower pay of the New Zealand system. Australians and New Zealanders have automatic residency rights in each other's nations. In Australia the provider's medical malpractice insurance is paid by the government only while working for Medicare. But providers who also maintain a private practice, as most do, must buy private insurance. The insurer itself had to be bailed out by the government. pubmedcentral.nih.gov So medical malpractice is different in Australia because the long term care is already paid for, but otherwise it's substantially the same as in America. .