Re: heads up- malpractice insurance
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Sun Jan 27 09:14:05 2002
Radiologists' reading mammography are seeing quantum jumps in premiums
as well - failure to diagnose breast cancer has replaced failure to
perform a timely c-section as number one with a bullet.
wonder, though, how much of a wet blanket the recent NCI commissioned
panel conclusions will throw on the plaintiffs' attorneys' zeal?
art
At Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Charlie Chambers wrote:
>
>I would reiterate what others have stated that the malpractice premiums
>are related to the large judgements against ob and not our failure to
>police ourselves.
>
>In general, I don't believe that our current systems accomplish the
>goal, improved quality care. The state boards are variable depending on
>political agendas, state attorney general offices and individual
>reporting to the board. In no other place will you see such a violation
>of due process. The "accused" in general, cannot know the accuser,
>present witnesses or experts to support their decisions. Because the
>accuser is never known, and completely protected, there is no prevention
>from accusing anyone of anything. Slander and liable are not a
>consideration. In that system, allowing public knowledge of accusations
>is merely the propagation of what is already faulty.
>
>Hospital boards are probably the only situation in the workplace where
>your competitors can be allowed to sit in judgement of the quality of
>your work. And under the "auspices" of quality, limit, restrict or force
>another provider out. I have a lawyer friend who feels that we as
>providers are the least protected from claims without merit, and liable.
>He wouldn't trade places with us for an instant.
>
>I do believe that we need constant quaity improvement. I don't think, in
>my humble opinion that the systems we now have in place come close to
>such a goal. I'm not sure of the answer, but the current system adds to
>the problem.
>
>On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 08:34 AM, Marilyn Ringst wrote:
>
>>>> So, it makes me wonder if the licensing boards need to be changed.
>>>> When you pay for your renewal of your license (not sure of your
>>>> process) MD's should have a huge decision in how your board serves
>>>> you. Not the other way around.>>
>>
>> Well actually, the purpose of the boards is for the protection of the
>> public, not the MDís. The licensing fees are to pay for the need to
>> investigate and ensure the quality of care. These boards shouldnít
>> ìserveî the MDís-they serve the public. Same thing for nursing boards,
>> etc.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this isnít the way it works most places. The Federation
>> of State Medical Boards. (http://www.fsmb.org) recommends a minimum of 25%
>> consumer members, with no ties to the medical community, to be on
>> medical boards. I doubt there is one state in compliance with all
>> their recommendations. Georgia has 1/13 consumer members-and I can
>> guarantee if any statutory changes were proposed, the Medical
>> Association of Georgia would descend with all of itís wrath on the
>> legislature. So much for protection of the public.
>>
>> You can't have it both ways, can't refuse to be monitored and then
>> complain about your malpractice rates.
>>
>> Marilyn Ringstaff, CNM
>> Rome, GA
>>
>**************************************************************************
>**
>
>--
>**************************************************************************
>Charlie Chambers
>Hood River, OR USA
>cchamber@alumni.rice.edu
>
>"...not because I regard fishing as being so terribly
>important but because I suspect that so many of the other
>concerns of men are equally unimportant-and not nearly
>so much fun."
> John Voelker
>**************************************************************************
>***
>**************************************************************************
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
