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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18690)	8/8/2010 2:05:10 AM
From: dybdahl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"Defensive medicine is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures conducted primarily not to ensure the health of the patient, but as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability." The definition seems quite precise, but it isn't. For instance, I had my daughter to a doctor with an insect bite that had bacteria in it, so it grew, it had an area of about 1-2 square inches by then. The doctor said: "I can give you antibiotics, but if you just remove the bandaid and let the area get air, it will heal itself". We chose not to get antibiotics, and it worked. However, I am quite sure, that most doctors would prescribe antibiotics for this. Is it defensive medicine to prescribe antibiotics? By the definition, yes. What was the cure? Don't use band-aids for wounds like this. Does this take a doctor? No, I should have known that. A nurse could have told me. Any system that involves a doctor wastes money. Is it defensive medicine when a person automatically takes a painkiller for a headache? Well, according to the definition, it matches up to the comma. But since that person cannot sue himself, the rest doesn't. But it is seriously close to defensive medicine. In my opinion, the "defensive medicine" can cover almost any standardized treatment, and the term is therefore useless. It may make sense in some specific contexts, but not when discussing the future of a health/health care system.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18690)	8/8/2010 10:46:26 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

In a recent study published about 2 months ago, a committee reviewed thousands of cases and concluded that only about 4% had possible cause to sue.....in fact, only about 4% of that 4% actually did sue.... So the claim of fear of litigation is a red herring..... Huh? I'd need to know more about that study. That the patients in only a small percentage of some unknown set of cases sued tells us nothing about the fear of litigation. I don't see any basis for forming that conclusion in what you posted. The whole point of defensive medicine is to avoid being sued so the active practice of defensive medicine would tend to reduce the number of legitimate lawsuits. If there are only a few legitimate lawsuits in the set, a very plausible explanation is that there was a strong proactive defense by the physicians, which would contradict your conclusion. I don't see any way to get from your data to your conclusion. Please connect the dots if you can.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18690)	8/8/2010 10:09:21 PM
From: skinowski	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Here is a hypothesis worth testing. I expect that I would probably be proven right in 95% of the cases. I submit that if a person who accompanies a friend or a relative to an emergency room visit will keep a notebook out, and will write down everything that doctors and nurses tell them, while generally acting as if they are looking for a reason to complain and/or to question the management of the case -- the cost for this visit will be higher than 95% of visits for similar complaints. This does not mean that the outcomes will be better. But the costs will be higher. I'll bet you 9 to 1. This is called defensive medicine, and in 95% of situations it is more expensive.... despite claims to the contrary. For a moderate fee I would be willing to help design and conduct such a study.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18690)	8/31/2010 1:39:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Your don't present your facts in such a way as to lead to your conclusion. Assuming that only 4% of all cases have probable causes to sue, and that only 4% of all such cases actually do sue (a combination which sounds unlikely to me, but which I'm assuming for the sake of argument, although its interesting how you demand links for logic, which is independent of the person making the claim, but don't provide any links for your claims of fact, which could be backed up by links) that doesn't represent an argument against defensive medicine not being a significant contributor to medical cost. It doesn't even present much of an argument against medical liability more directly contributing to costs. Your point my be that if 4% of 4% sue, that's only a very small percent (.16% or 16 out of 10000) that sue. Such a low number would limit the direct costs, but since each lawsuit can be very expensive it would not eliminate the issue. Also in many cases possible suits are settled. That costs money as well. And doctors provide many instances of treatment. .16% of all treatments resulting in a lawsuit is still a lot of lawsuits. More importantly as Lane3 pointed out, increased defensive medicine would reduce lawsuits, so having a small percentage of cases result in malpractice lawsuits, is not a sign of lack of defensive medicine, in fact its as likely or more to be a sign of a lot of defensive medicine. President Obama has not been physically assaulted since his inauguration. Is that a sign that security for presidents is not an important issue? No its a sign that the president has a lot of security. The lack of attacks is not a sign that security doesn't cost a lot. The lack of attacks is the result of (among other things, its not the only factor) that expensive security is provided. To the extent that malpractice suits may occur less than is expected or believed, it may be becuase of that expensive defensive medicine "security".