Re: US malpractice (long)
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Tue Aug 5 07:21:18 2003
medicine can never be cost-effective since the ultimate outcome is
always the same. well, for everyone except maybe Shirley MacLaine ...
art
At Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Dr. John Provatopoulos B.Sc. M.D.C.M. F.R.S.C.
wrote:
>
>At Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Douglas Krell wrote:
>>
>>What's the difference between this outcome and a national "no-fault" insurance program?
>>
>>If every man woman and child carried a no-fault medical injury policy that paid a "low" amount if an unavoidable medical bad outcome occurred, then people could be compensated in some way when disaster strikes.
>>
>>On the flip side, physicians would still have to carry malpractice coverage, but ultimately people would be less likely to sue for any bad outcome.
>>
>>--
>>Douglas Krell MD
>>
>Doug, I agree there is a role for some sort of no-fault insurance
>program. The
>standard of care for losing a law suit use to be that the physician's
>care fell
>below the standard of any reasonable physicians ability and knowledge to
>prevent
>damage. We all know that the idea that injuries are not always
>preventable given
>the circumstances prior to injury is a concept that has become foreign
>to juries
>and judges. So no fault insurance in conjunction with tort reform could
>be part of the answer. Basically the patient would make a claim, a
>panel would asses it
>and in must cases if the patient has suffered a serious financial
>setback the patient would receive an award. If the patient was not
>happy with the award they
>could still sue but the standard would the though one of proving it was
>preventable by a reasonably knowledgeable and proficient physician not
>the super
>physician model that seems to apply these days. Part of the tort reform
>would be
>that medical malpractice trials would occur in front of specially
>trained judges
>who truly understood the reasonable physician model. Part of tort
>reform would
>also be an elimination of contingency fees for lawyers and a capping of
>a certain % of any large award a lawyer can receive.
>
>Finally if somebody believes their present worth, future worth or pain
>and suffering is worth much more than what a no fault insurance board
>would
>award than they should be allowed to purchase special malpractice
>insurance at
>the level they want much like you can buy as much life insurance as you
>want.
>
>This will only end when the powers that be have the stomach to face the
>fact that health care to the masses and making money are not compatible.
>
>--
> Take care, John
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
