Barry-Care Was Always A Ploy To Get Single-Payer

[healthmyths]

The Patients’ Compensation System, now under consideration in the Georgia and Florida legislatures, would eliminate the possibility of any physician or hospital ever being sued again. It would repeal our broken medical tort system, replacing it with a no-blame, administrative system which allows a panel of experts to hear medical claims in the event that a patient has been harmed.

Patients’ claims would be heard more quickly and they would be compensated in a manner similar to our current legal system.
The system would be funded with current medical liability premiums and would not require a tax increase or use taxpayer dollars to administer. Most importantly, doctors could concentrate on practicing medicine without the fear of being sued, thus eliminating the need to order unnecessary tests.

Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss.
A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive medicine and the broken malpractice system are two of of the major reasons that healthcare costs are soaring out of control. It’s time to stop just talking about malpractice reform and instead, get to the root of the problem. By replacing our antiquated medical malpractice system with the Patient Compensation System, we will strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and stop hemorrhaging money spent on defensive medicine.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

 

[Freewill]

Countries who do not spend what the US does on health care, do they have the same services?

Not familiar with all countries but in Britain and France, basically yes. Services are delivered a bit differently. You might have to wait a bit longer than in the US for screenings and optional procedures but if you are really ill, services are every bit as good as in the US.

One of the big differences I noted in France was the pharmacies. They are so much more than what we have in the US in regard to healthcare. First, they are 100% about healthcare, no candies, cosmetics, or cell phones. Everyone in the pharmacy is trained in pharmacology. You don't have to wait a half hour to get prescriptions filled. You go to the counter hand them your prescription and they hand you a box of pills. Everything except specialized drugs are prepackaged. The price is the same at all pharmacies, about 25% to 90% less than what we pay in the US. Another big difference in pharmacies is they are there to consult with you concerning not just the medication but your illness often giving you information the doctor didn't. Many people will go to a pharmacist before going to the doctor.

Another difference in the systems is length of hospital stays. Beginning with the day you enter the hospital they are working toward getting you out of the hospital. I think they see the hospital as a place where you are treated and recovery begins but most of your recovery will be at home.

Most people are less concerned about healthcare issues than in the US and no one is worried about whether their treatment is covered or whether they can afford it.

So strange why you can't do a little research to see how ridiculous arguments about healthcare in the USA!

Great Britain/France combined population is only 40% of USA.
Very hard to make a comparison when the population of USA is not only GREATER but more diverse.
French is the only official language of France, and is constitutionally required to be the language of government and administration"!
* France: In 2004, 85% of the population of Metropolitan France was white or of European origin, with 10% from North Africa, 3.5% Black and 1.5% Asian.
* Great Britain: White: 55,073,552 87.17% Asian: 6.92% Black: 3.01%
* USA: White 72.4% Black 12.6? Asian 4.8% Two or more races: 9.3%

So you are making a comparison with 2 countries with LESS diverse population AND less then 40% the population!
Those two factors make your argument specious at most!

Finally... How many NEW drugs do the drug companies of Great Britain and France release?

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B
A benchmark report estimates that the cost of bringing a drug to market has more than doubled in the past 10 years
CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development. The center’s analysis drew from information provided by 10 pharmaceutical companies on 106 randomly selected drugs first tested in humans between 1995 and 2007.

The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion,
Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

B) So what country in this world has developed more Drugs then the USA???
Obama Care Will End Drug Advances and Europe's Free Ride (Unless China Steps in)
95% of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States.
They are paid for by American consumers, while other countries, such as Canada, Germany and France, free ride at our expense.
The United States is the last major country that allows the market to set prices high enough to compensate pharmaceutical companies for their R&D investments.
Obama Care will increasingly control pharmaceutical prices as costs rise and federal and state funds fall short.
Major pharmaceutical advances will stop (How well will government labs work?), and the rest of the world will lose along with Americans.
Obama Care Will End Drug Advances and Europe's Free Ride (Unless China Steps in)

In France, most drug prices are controlled by the government. Almost all drugs available in the US are available in France at very low prices, either as the brand name or generic. If a drug is not available, you can still purchase it but you'll pay higher prices.

In France as in most larger countries in Europe, the government is a major contributor to drug research. Briton is second to the US in introducing new drugs and France is 3rd.

Government funded research dollars go where the medical community believe the greatest need is. Drug company research is directed at where the greatest profits lie, often in maintenance drugs to treat chronic conditions or new drugs that have no therapeutic value over existing drugs. One of the greatest needs in drug development is more effective antibiotics. However drug companies prefer to put the R&D dollars into drugs that people take for a life time, not two weeks. Also, much of drug company research is not aimed at new drugs, only minor changes to existing drugs such as extended release, repackaging, changing delivery method. These all extend patents and can produce huge profits with limited healthcare benefits.

A major difference I see in the French healthcare system is the patient is not pushed into healthcare services to increase revenue. Typically, a doctor will make suggestions as to diagnostics and treatment. In the US healthcare system, we put the doctor in charge which may well be good medical practice but with a fee for service system such as ours it add billions of dollars to medical cost.

For example, a see my family doctor about a worsen cough and he says I need to see a pulmonologist who is right down the hall and he will be happy to get me an appointment. I see him and he schedules me for a CT Scan and reports that I have asthma which of course I knew already. He schedules a complete set of breathing tests which tells how bad it is, which I already told him. And just to make sure there is no cardiac involvement he recommends I see a cardiologist who is in the same building. After seeing the cardiologist, having an EKG and a stress test, I find I may have a minor problem which needs to be monitored. So after seeing three doctors, having a half dozen tests at a cost of probably $10,000, I take the same medication but now see three doctors two or three times a year so they monitor my condition. The difference in countries like France and Briton, is no one is trying to sell you medical services. It's entirely patients decision.

BTW I'm not saying the French, British, or any other country's healthcare system would work well in the US. I am saying there are huge advantages to their systems when it comes to quality of care and cost. The kind of health system a country has is unfortunately often determined by the political system in that country.

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

 

[Freewill]

The Patients’ Compensation System, now under consideration in the Georgia and Florida legislatures, would eliminate the possibility of any physician or hospital ever being sued again. It would repeal our broken medical tort system, replacing it with a no-blame, administrative system which allows a panel of experts to hear medical claims in the event that a patient has been harmed.

Patients’ claims would be heard more quickly and they would be compensated in a manner similar to our current legal system.
The system would be funded with current medical liability premiums and would not require a tax increase or use taxpayer dollars to administer. Most importantly, doctors could concentrate on practicing medicine without the fear of being sued, thus eliminating the need to order unnecessary tests.

Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss.
A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive medicine and the broken malpractice system are two of of the major reasons that healthcare costs are soaring out of control. It’s time to stop just talking about malpractice reform and instead, get to the root of the problem. By replacing our antiquated medical malpractice system with the Patient Compensation System, we will strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and stop hemorrhaging money spent on defensive medicine.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

Sounds like a really good idea, remove all responsibility of the doctor and replace it with a simple, so sorry.

 

[Freewill]

That is what single payer is. Socialized medicine where the filthy government collects taxes from the productive people and use it to pay for medical care for everybody.

As opposed to right now, where a private company unaccountable to you collects premiums from healthy people and uses them to pad their corporate profits before spending even a dime on your health care. Why do you want to preserve that system? A single payer levels the playing field for providers by reimbursing all of them at the same rate. Then it's incumbent on the providers to attract patients by improving outcomes and reducing costs. As opposed to now, when you can only go see a doctor in your insurance network, in your state. A single payer plan is 100% portable. Private insurance isn't.

Evidently you never heard of these guys!
State-based insurance regulation[edit]
Historically, the insurance industry has been regulated almost exclusively by the individual state governments. The first state commissioner of insurance was appointed in New Hampshire in 1851 and the state-based insurance regulatory system grew as quickly as the insurance industry itself.[4] Prior to this period, insurance was primarily regulated by corporate charter, state statutory law and de facto regulation by the courts in judicial decisions.[5][6] States coordinate through a nonprofit trade association of state regulatory agencies called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which proposes model laws which may be adopted by the members.
Insurance regulatory law - Wikipedia
You want to start an insurance company DUMMY???
The chart below identifies the minimum capital and surplus requirement for each Uniform State
Health Stock, Mutual & Reciprocal Insurer Capital Stock $300,000 Free Surplus $150,000
Want to sell in 20 states? $9 million! And that's just Capital stock and Surplus for each!
http://www.naic.org/documents/industry_ucaa_chart_min_capital_surplus.pdf
Do you have $9 million?
NEXT... what does it take to operate in 20 states a health insurance company?
Well since a simpleton like you has such a short attention span here is a chart of operating expenses of a insurance company!
Where Does Your Premium Dollar Go? - AHIP
GEEZ you guys are so ignorant when it comes to how businesses work!
LOOK at that net margin.... 2.7¢!

View attachment 142052

Interesting chart, I don't see defensive medicine or malpractice insurance on the chart.

The True Cost Of Medical Malpractice - It May Surprise You

 

[healthmyths]

That is what single payer is. Socialized medicine where the filthy government collects taxes from the productive people and use it to pay for medical care for everybody.

As opposed to right now, where a private company unaccountable to you collects premiums from healthy people and uses them to pad their corporate profits before spending even a dime on your health care. Why do you want to preserve that system? A single payer levels the playing field for providers by reimbursing all of them at the same rate. Then it's incumbent on the providers to attract patients by improving outcomes and reducing costs. As opposed to now, when you can only go see a doctor in your insurance network, in your state. A single payer plan is 100% portable. Private insurance isn't.

Evidently you never heard of these guys!
State-based insurance regulation[edit]
Historically, the insurance industry has been regulated almost exclusively by the individual state governments. The first state commissioner of insurance was appointed in New Hampshire in 1851 and the state-based insurance regulatory system grew as quickly as the insurance industry itself.[4] Prior to this period, insurance was primarily regulated by corporate charter, state statutory law and de facto regulation by the courts in judicial decisions.[5][6] States coordinate through a nonprofit trade association of state regulatory agencies called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which proposes model laws which may be adopted by the members.
Insurance regulatory law - Wikipedia
You want to start an insurance company DUMMY???
The chart below identifies the minimum capital and surplus requirement for each Uniform State
Health Stock, Mutual & Reciprocal Insurer Capital Stock $300,000 Free Surplus $150,000
Want to sell in 20 states? $9 million! And that's just Capital stock and Surplus for each!
http://www.naic.org/documents/industry_ucaa_chart_min_capital_surplus.pdf
Do you have $9 million?
NEXT... what does it take to operate in 20 states a health insurance company?
Well since a simpleton like you has such a short attention span here is a chart of operating expenses of a insurance company!
Where Does Your Premium Dollar Go? - AHIP
GEEZ you guys are so ignorant when it comes to how businesses work!
LOOK at that net margin.... 2.7¢!

View attachment 142052

Interesting chart, I don't see defensive medicine or malpractice insurance on the chart.

The True Cost Of Medical Malpractice - It May Surprise You

The insurance company chart shows operating expenses.
You do understand that "defensive medicine" means for example "ordering duplicate tests" falls into the category of "Outpatient services" of which the insurance
company then pays the claims filed to do the "duplicate tests". So part of the nearly 20% of claim expenses included duplicate tests done as "outpatient services".
Also when in the survey of ONLY physicians the "defensive medicine" costs includes referrals to specialists so as to confirm or reduce lawsuits.
These physicians/specialists send claims into the insurance companies that pay them which is considered part of "Physician services" or over 22% of the premiums.
So add these two you have nearly 42% of insurance premiums going for outpatient/physicians. Since the below survey which I guess you still don't believe the physicians
that you trust your health to, know what they are talking about when they say :

• Physicians attribute 26 percent of overall healthcare costs to the practice of defensive medicine

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
According to CMS (here) our National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) is projected to hit $3.207 trillion this year

Now I know this is a lot of material for short attention span people to deal with but these are the facts folks.
I don't understand why these same people take their physicians advice BUT when it comes to discussing why physicians practice "defensive medicine" you don't believe these physicians KNOW what they are saying. The physician orders duplicate tests simple as a routine anymore because they are just covering their butts!

 

[healthmyths]

Not familiar with all countries but in Britain and France, basically yes. Services are delivered a bit differently. You might have to wait a bit longer than in the US for screenings and optional procedures but if you are really ill, services are every bit as good as in the US.

One of the big differences I noted in France was the pharmacies. They are so much more than what we have in the US in regard to healthcare. First, they are 100% about healthcare, no candies, cosmetics, or cell phones. Everyone in the pharmacy is trained in pharmacology. You don't have to wait a half hour to get prescriptions filled. You go to the counter hand them your prescription and they hand you a box of pills. Everything except specialized drugs are prepackaged. The price is the same at all pharmacies, about 25% to 90% less than what we pay in the US. Another big difference in pharmacies is they are there to consult with you concerning not just the medication but your illness often giving you information the doctor didn't. Many people will go to a pharmacist before going to the doctor.

Another difference in the systems is length of hospital stays. Beginning with the day you enter the hospital they are working toward getting you out of the hospital. I think they see the hospital as a place where you are treated and recovery begins but most of your recovery will be at home.

Most people are less concerned about healthcare issues than in the US and no one is worried about whether their treatment is covered or whether they can afford it.

So strange why you can't do a little research to see how ridiculous arguments about healthcare in the USA!

Great Britain/France combined population is only 40% of USA.
Very hard to make a comparison when the population of USA is not only GREATER but more diverse.
French is the only official language of France, and is constitutionally required to be the language of government and administration"!
* France: In 2004, 85% of the population of Metropolitan France was white or of European origin, with 10% from North Africa, 3.5% Black and 1.5% Asian.
* Great Britain: White: 55,073,552 87.17% Asian: 6.92% Black: 3.01%
* USA: White 72.4% Black 12.6? Asian 4.8% Two or more races: 9.3%

So you are making a comparison with 2 countries with LESS diverse population AND less then 40% the population!
Those two factors make your argument specious at most!

Finally... How many NEW drugs do the drug companies of Great Britain and France release?

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B
A benchmark report estimates that the cost of bringing a drug to market has more than doubled in the past 10 years
CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development. The center’s analysis drew from information provided by 10 pharmaceutical companies on 106 randomly selected drugs first tested in humans between 1995 and 2007.

The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion,
Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

B) So what country in this world has developed more Drugs then the USA???
Obama Care Will End Drug Advances and Europe's Free Ride (Unless China Steps in)
95% of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States.
They are paid for by American consumers, while other countries, such as Canada, Germany and France, free ride at our expense.
The United States is the last major country that allows the market to set prices high enough to compensate pharmaceutical companies for their R&D investments.
Obama Care will increasingly control pharmaceutical prices as costs rise and federal and state funds fall short.
Major pharmaceutical advances will stop (How well will government labs work?), and the rest of the world will lose along with Americans.
Obama Care Will End Drug Advances and Europe's Free Ride (Unless China Steps in)

In France, most drug prices are controlled by the government. Almost all drugs available in the US are available in France at very low prices, either as the brand name or generic. If a drug is not available, you can still purchase it but you'll pay higher prices.

In France as in most larger countries in Europe, the government is a major contributor to drug research. Briton is second to the US in introducing new drugs and France is 3rd.

Government funded research dollars go where the medical community believe the greatest need is. Drug company research is directed at where the greatest profits lie, often in maintenance drugs to treat chronic conditions or new drugs that have no therapeutic value over existing drugs. One of the greatest needs in drug development is more effective antibiotics. However drug companies prefer to put the R&D dollars into drugs that people take for a life time, not two weeks. Also, much of drug company research is not aimed at new drugs, only minor changes to existing drugs such as extended release, repackaging, changing delivery method. These all extend patents and can produce huge profits with limited healthcare benefits.

A major difference I see in the French healthcare system is the patient is not pushed into healthcare services to increase revenue. Typically, a doctor will make suggestions as to diagnostics and treatment. In the US healthcare system, we put the doctor in charge which may well be good medical practice but with a fee for service system such as ours it add billions of dollars to medical cost.

For example, a see my family doctor about a worsen cough and he says I need to see a pulmonologist who is right down the hall and he will be happy to get me an appointment. I see him and he schedules me for a CT Scan and reports that I have asthma which of course I knew already. He schedules a complete set of breathing tests which tells how bad it is, which I already told him. And just to make sure there is no cardiac involvement he recommends I see a cardiologist who is in the same building. After seeing the cardiologist, having an EKG and a stress test, I find I may have a minor problem which needs to be monitored. So after seeing three doctors, having a half dozen tests at a cost of probably $10,000, I take the same medication but now see three doctors two or three times a year so they monitor my condition. The difference in countries like France and Briton, is no one is trying to sell you medical services. It's entirely patients decision.

BTW I'm not saying the French, British, or any other country's healthcare system would work well in the US. I am saying there are huge advantages to their systems when it comes to quality of care and cost. The kind of health system a country has is unfortunately often determined by the political system in that country.

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

 

[Freewill]

So strange why you can't do a little research to see how ridiculous arguments about healthcare in the USA!

Great Britain/France combined population is only 40% of USA.
Very hard to make a comparison when the population of USA is not only GREATER but more diverse.
French is the only official language of France, and is constitutionally required to be the language of government and administration"!
* France: In 2004, 85% of the population of Metropolitan France was white or of European origin, with 10% from North Africa, 3.5% Black and 1.5% Asian.
* Great Britain: White: 55,073,552 87.17% Asian: 6.92% Black: 3.01%
* USA: White 72.4% Black 12.6? Asian 4.8% Two or more races: 9.3%

So you are making a comparison with 2 countries with LESS diverse population AND less then 40% the population!
Those two factors make your argument specious at most!

Finally... How many NEW drugs do the drug companies of Great Britain and France release?

Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B
A benchmark report estimates that the cost of bringing a drug to market has more than doubled in the past 10 years
CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development. The center’s analysis drew from information provided by 10 pharmaceutical companies on 106 randomly selected drugs first tested in humans between 1995 and 2007.

The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion,
Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B

B) So what country in this world has developed more Drugs then the USA???
Obama Care Will End Drug Advances and Europe's Free Ride (Unless China Steps in)
95% of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States.
They are paid for by American consumers, while other countries, such as Canada, Germany and France, free ride at our expense.
The United States is the last major country that allows the market to set prices high enough to compensate pharmaceutical companies for their R&D investments.
Obama Care will increasingly control pharmaceutical prices as costs rise and federal and state funds fall short.
Major pharmaceutical advances will stop (How well will government labs work?), and the rest of the world will lose along with Americans.
Obama Care Will End Drug Advances and Europe's Free Ride (Unless China Steps in)

In France, most drug prices are controlled by the government. Almost all drugs available in the US are available in France at very low prices, either as the brand name or generic. If a drug is not available, you can still purchase it but you'll pay higher prices.

In France as in most larger countries in Europe, the government is a major contributor to drug research. Briton is second to the US in introducing new drugs and France is 3rd.

Government funded research dollars go where the medical community believe the greatest need is. Drug company research is directed at where the greatest profits lie, often in maintenance drugs to treat chronic conditions or new drugs that have no therapeutic value over existing drugs. One of the greatest needs in drug development is more effective antibiotics. However drug companies prefer to put the R&D dollars into drugs that people take for a life time, not two weeks. Also, much of drug company research is not aimed at new drugs, only minor changes to existing drugs such as extended release, repackaging, changing delivery method. These all extend patents and can produce huge profits with limited healthcare benefits.

A major difference I see in the French healthcare system is the patient is not pushed into healthcare services to increase revenue. Typically, a doctor will make suggestions as to diagnostics and treatment. In the US healthcare system, we put the doctor in charge which may well be good medical practice but with a fee for service system such as ours it add billions of dollars to medical cost.

For example, a see my family doctor about a worsen cough and he says I need to see a pulmonologist who is right down the hall and he will be happy to get me an appointment. I see him and he schedules me for a CT Scan and reports that I have asthma which of course I knew already. He schedules a complete set of breathing tests which tells how bad it is, which I already told him. And just to make sure there is no cardiac involvement he recommends I see a cardiologist who is in the same building. After seeing the cardiologist, having an EKG and a stress test, I find I may have a minor problem which needs to be monitored. So after seeing three doctors, having a half dozen tests at a cost of probably $10,000, I take the same medication but now see three doctors two or three times a year so they monitor my condition. The difference in countries like France and Briton, is no one is trying to sell you medical services. It's entirely patients decision.

BTW I'm not saying the French, British, or any other country's healthcare system would work well in the US. I am saying there are huge advantages to their systems when it comes to quality of care and cost. The kind of health system a country has is unfortunately often determined by the political system in that country.

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

 

[healthmyths]

In France, most drug prices are controlled by the government. Almost all drugs available in the US are available in France at very low prices, either as the brand name or generic. If a drug is not available, you can still purchase it but you'll pay higher prices.

In France as in most larger countries in Europe, the government is a major contributor to drug research. Briton is second to the US in introducing new drugs and France is 3rd.

Government funded research dollars go where the medical community believe the greatest need is. Drug company research is directed at where the greatest profits lie, often in maintenance drugs to treat chronic conditions or new drugs that have no therapeutic value over existing drugs. One of the greatest needs in drug development is more effective antibiotics. However drug companies prefer to put the R&D dollars into drugs that people take for a life time, not two weeks. Also, much of drug company research is not aimed at new drugs, only minor changes to existing drugs such as extended release, repackaging, changing delivery method. These all extend patents and can produce huge profits with limited healthcare benefits.

A major difference I see in the French healthcare system is the patient is not pushed into healthcare services to increase revenue. Typically, a doctor will make suggestions as to diagnostics and treatment. In the US healthcare system, we put the doctor in charge which may well be good medical practice but with a fee for service system such as ours it add billions of dollars to medical cost.

For example, a see my family doctor about a worsen cough and he says I need to see a pulmonologist who is right down the hall and he will be happy to get me an appointment. I see him and he schedules me for a CT Scan and reports that I have asthma which of course I knew already. He schedules a complete set of breathing tests which tells how bad it is, which I already told him. And just to make sure there is no cardiac involvement he recommends I see a cardiologist who is in the same building. After seeing the cardiologist, having an EKG and a stress test, I find I may have a minor problem which needs to be monitored. So after seeing three doctors, having a half dozen tests at a cost of probably $10,000, I take the same medication but now see three doctors two or three times a year so they monitor my condition. The difference in countries like France and Briton, is no one is trying to sell you medical services. It's entirely patients decision.

BTW I'm not saying the French, British, or any other country's healthcare system would work well in the US. I am saying there are huge advantages to their systems when it comes to quality of care and cost. The kind of health system a country has is unfortunately often determined by the political system in that country.

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

 

[Flopper]

In France, most drug prices are controlled by the government. Almost all drugs available in the US are available in France at very low prices, either as the brand name or generic. If a drug is not available, you can still purchase it but you'll pay higher prices.

In France as in most larger countries in Europe, the government is a major contributor to drug research. Briton is second to the US in introducing new drugs and France is 3rd.

Government funded research dollars go where the medical community believe the greatest need is. Drug company research is directed at where the greatest profits lie, often in maintenance drugs to treat chronic conditions or new drugs that have no therapeutic value over existing drugs. One of the greatest needs in drug development is more effective antibiotics. However drug companies prefer to put the R&D dollars into drugs that people take for a life time, not two weeks. Also, much of drug company research is not aimed at new drugs, only minor changes to existing drugs such as extended release, repackaging, changing delivery method. These all extend patents and can produce huge profits with limited healthcare benefits.

A major difference I see in the French healthcare system is the patient is not pushed into healthcare services to increase revenue. Typically, a doctor will make suggestions as to diagnostics and treatment. In the US healthcare system, we put the doctor in charge which may well be good medical practice but with a fee for service system such as ours it add billions of dollars to medical cost.

For example, a see my family doctor about a worsen cough and he says I need to see a pulmonologist who is right down the hall and he will be happy to get me an appointment. I see him and he schedules me for a CT Scan and reports that I have asthma which of course I knew already. He schedules a complete set of breathing tests which tells how bad it is, which I already told him. And just to make sure there is no cardiac involvement he recommends I see a cardiologist who is in the same building. After seeing the cardiologist, having an EKG and a stress test, I find I may have a minor problem which needs to be monitored. So after seeing three doctors, having a half dozen tests at a cost of probably $10,000, I take the same medication but now see three doctors two or three times a year so they monitor my condition. The difference in countries like France and Briton, is no one is trying to sell you medical services. It's entirely patients decision.

BTW I'm not saying the French, British, or any other country's healthcare system would work well in the US. I am saying there are huge advantages to their systems when it comes to quality of care and cost. The kind of health system a country has is unfortunately often determined by the political system in that country.

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Defensive medicine means a doctor is motivated to order tests or treatments not to help the patient but rather to prevent legal actions if a problem occurs. However such motivation is highly subjective.

For example, a physician sees a patient who had a blow to the head. His physical examination points to no indication of epidural hematoma and the doctor could send the patient without further tests. However, there is a small risk that he could have miss that diagnosis and end up in a lawsuit so he orders more tests which eliminates any doubt and protects the doctor if legal actions arise.

Those that favor reducing your right to sue, claim that with tort reform, the doctor will not order addition tests thus reduce his fees slightly, save your insurance company some money, and slightly increase your chance of further problems. To that, I say BULL SHIT for several reason.

• Many doctors today work for large clinics, groups, and hospitals that cover any malpractice suits.
• Even if states put caps on malpractice suits, it will still cause the doctor big problems such as inquiries by the hospital or the state and legal action.
• Lastly, most patients pay little or nothing for additional tests. The insurance company does and doctors are not particular interested in saving the insurance company money by adding a slight risk to the their patients and themselves.

I doubt doctors will act any different with or without tort reform.

 

[Flopper]

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

 

[healthmyths]

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

But of course you are defending lawyers then!
The proof Tort reform works is the 1946 Federal Tort Act! When over half the doctors surveyed who are under federal contract report they DON"T practice "defensive medicine" isn't that proof that it works? Again why are you defending lawyers? As was shown "Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss. A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

And again. Where are your links regarding "defensive medicine began in 2004"?
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf

"For more then two decades!!!! And this was written in 1994!
So once again... simple search on the Internet surely would save you embarrassment of ignorance!
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about because EVERY TIME you come up with some personal observation... that's the problem!
You are just plain lazy! You make opinions with NO substantiation of your opinion!

 

[Flopper]

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

But of course you are defending lawyers then!
The proof Tort reform works is the 1946 Federal Tort Act! When over half the doctors surveyed who are under federal contract report they DON"T practice "defensive medicine" isn't that proof that it works? Again why are you defending lawyers? As was shown "Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss. A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

And again. Where are your links regarding "defensive medicine began in 2004"?
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf

"For more then two decades!!!! And this was written in 1994!
So once again... simple search on the Internet surely would save you embarrassment of ignorance!
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about because EVERY TIME you come up with some personal observation... that's the problem!
You are just plain lazy! You make opinions with NO substantiation of your opinion!

Doctors protected under the 1946 law have no reason to say they practice defensive medicine because they are protected from legal action. Doctors not protected by the law certainly have reason to claim they practice defensive medicine because they want that protection. It's really pretty simple. Doctors who want tort reform claim they practice defensive medicine. Just because they make claim, does not make true.

 

[healthmyths]

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

But of course you are defending lawyers then!
The proof Tort reform works is the 1946 Federal Tort Act! When over half the doctors surveyed who are under federal contract report they DON"T practice "defensive medicine" isn't that proof that it works? Again why are you defending lawyers? As was shown "Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss. A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

And again. Where are your links regarding "defensive medicine began in 2004"?
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf

"For more then two decades!!!! And this was written in 1994!
So once again... simple search on the Internet surely would save you embarrassment of ignorance!
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about because EVERY TIME you come up with some personal observation... that's the problem!
You are just plain lazy! You make opinions with NO substantiation of your opinion!

Doctors protected under the 1946 law have no reason to say they practice defensive medicine because they are protected from legal action. Doctors not protected by the law certainly have reason to claim they practice defensive medicine because they want that protection. It's really pretty simple. Doctors who want tort reform claim they practice defensive medicine. Just because they make claim, does not make true.

Well so far you have been wrong on several accounts. And now you are making a personal and frankly wacky statement.
Duh! So if doctors under federal protection have no reason to practice defensive medicine and they say they don't what are you SAYING?
AND YES doctors that don't have tort protection then DO defensive medicine. What is the issue here?
They SAY they do and they DO! I mean duplicate tests are a reality! Referring to specialists are a reality!
You make NO sense because THEY do practice defensive medicine. It's been known decades ago!
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf
What more reality then the above statements...made not by people like you who have NO experience and just spouting your personal opinion!
Get some proof and maybe I'll believe you but so far I've GIVEN you links. I'm not making up statements like you are! I'm hopefully educating you on reality.
Now unless you are a lawyer, have a relative that's a lawyer, what kind of thinking do you have to continually state the obvious! Yes doctors under 1946 Tort Act don't practicedefensive medicine and doctors not covered by the 1946 Tort DO! Why are you so against these facts?

 

[Freewill]

So, if the doctors had suggested any of those test to you to decide, what would you have said? BTW, they don't force you to have additional testing. If you think it a waste of time you more or less could get out of them, But it might mean not getting the prescriptions you need.

I have never had a lot of defensive medicine. I even started working out and told my sleep doctor, cardiologist, that if I was too strenuous I had some chest pain. I didn't think it a problem but he did and sent me for a stress test, which in retrospect I am not really sure what I expected. I passed the stress test, hardest thing I have done in a long while, and that was the end of it. I went back to working out and have yet to drop over.

Me thinks that a lot of the "extra" testing you talk about is a doctor being careful, everyone makes mistakes and they just want to be sure. Couple that with, I believe, the doctors make a profit from prescribing tests. When I told my PCP about the being prescribed a stress test his first comment was, "that's my job."

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Defensive medicine means a doctor is motivated to order tests or treatments not to help the patient but rather to prevent legal actions if a problem occurs. However such motivation is highly subjective.

For example, a physician sees a patient who had a blow to the head. His physical examination points to no indication of epidural hematoma and the doctor could send the patient without further tests. However, there is a small risk that he could have miss that diagnosis and end up in a lawsuit so he orders more tests which eliminates any doubt and protects the doctor if legal actions arise.

Those that favor reducing your right to sue, claim that with tort reform, the doctor will not order addition tests thus reduce his fees slightly, save your insurance company some money, and slightly increase your chance of further problems. To that, I say BULL SHIT for several reason.

• Many doctors today work for large clinics, groups, and hospitals that cover any malpractice suits.
• Even if states put caps on malpractice suits, it will still cause the doctor big problems such as inquiries by the hospital or the state and legal action.
• Lastly, most patients pay little or nothing for additional tests. The insurance company does and doctors are not particular interested in saving the insurance company money by adding a slight risk to the their patients and themselves.

I doubt doctors will act any different with or without tort reform.

I think that this tort reform argument is just an argument from the side that has healthcare provided to them. They don't apparently care about the person who lost their job and has no healthcare. I hope we don't become a country that only cares about themselves. And I am a conservative, mostly.

However, there is a small risk that he could have miss that diagnosis and end up in a lawsuit so he orders more tests which eliminates any doubt and protects the doctor if legal actions arise.

Interesting if doctors think this way. Ordering test on the chance of a lawsuit if they didn't diagnose the patient properly. I would hope they would order the test because there is a possibility of a risk they did not see which would hurt the patient, not because if they do miss it the patient might sue.

 

[healthmyths]

Most of what many consider unnecessary testing falls under the category of good medicine. If you have an MRI and the doctor diagnoses a cancer and it's treated doesn't it make good sense to make sure the treatment was completely effective and the disease is actually gone? Many conditions can only be effective treated by monitoring the conditions with various tests run over and over.

I think much of the defensive medicine claim comes from healthcare providers who want laws to limit medical malpractice suits in order to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance.

Even if we limited medical malpractice suits, healthcare professional will run the tests because there are sound medical reasons to do and they make money in one way or another by doing so.

As I said, I have not seen defensive medicine in practice. But then again I am reasonably healthy. I think there is a bigger chance of medical rip off then the threat of mal practice suits. I personally know of no one who has sued for malpractice. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen just I don't see it as widespread.

A) You wrote "I think". There is the problem. YOU have NO FACTS to support your "thinking".
B) You wrote "I personally know of no one sued". You know thousands and thousands of doctors? If you are "reasonably healthy" How come?
FACT for you from the study:

• Physicians who reported practicing defensive medicine, estimated the following:
• 35 percent of diagnostic tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 29 percent of lab tests were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 19 percent of hospitalizations were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 14 percent of prescriptions were ordered to avoid lawsuits
• 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits

https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/
Now as far as actual how many physicians have been sued:
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week says that one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year.
Moreover, almost every physician will face a malpractice suit — or more than one — during his career.
The study also reported that, although many suits are filed, relatively few are successful. The aggrieved patient wins only 22 percent of the time.
Most Doctors Sued Sometime in Career

Again I know this is a LOT of information but don't agree it is better for you to form opinions based on facts versus your Personal experience?

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Defensive medicine means a doctor is motivated to order tests or treatments not to help the patient but rather to prevent legal actions if a problem occurs. However such motivation is highly subjective.

For example, a physician sees a patient who had a blow to the head. His physical examination points to no indication of epidural hematoma and the doctor could send the patient without further tests. However, there is a small risk that he could have miss that diagnosis and end up in a lawsuit so he orders more tests which eliminates any doubt and protects the doctor if legal actions arise.

Those that favor reducing your right to sue, claim that with tort reform, the doctor will not order addition tests thus reduce his fees slightly, save your insurance company some money, and slightly increase your chance of further problems. To that, I say BULL SHIT for several reason.

• Many doctors today work for large clinics, groups, and hospitals that cover any malpractice suits.
• Even if states put caps on malpractice suits, it will still cause the doctor big problems such as inquiries by the hospital or the state and legal action.
• Lastly, most patients pay little or nothing for additional tests. The insurance company does and doctors are not particular interested in saving the insurance company money by adding a slight risk to the their patients and themselves.

I doubt doctors will act any different with or without tort reform.

I think that this tort reform argument is just an argument from the side that has healthcare provided to them. They don't apparently care about the person who lost their job and has no healthcare. I hope we don't become a country that only cares about themselves. And I am a conservative, mostly.

However, there is a small risk that he could have miss that diagnosis and end up in a lawsuit so he orders more tests which eliminates any doubt and protects the doctor if legal actions arise.

Interesting if doctors think this way. Ordering test on the chance of a lawsuit if they didn't diagnose the patient properly. I would hope they would order the test because there is a possibility of a risk they did not see which would hurt the patient, not because if they do miss it the patient might sue.

Again you are not proving anything with your "opinions". I want facts from you. Opinions are normally based on knowledge so far you have exhibited nothing but
personal observation and I still don't understand why you are defending lawyers?
Whether it is "interesting" or not is a moot exercise. The physicians you trust to take care of your body are telling you they practice defensive medicine because evidently people like you want lawyers to file lawsuits at every opportunity...(unless they are under $500,000! see above!).
Nothing you write answers why you are defending lawyers. Why you are disputing what the same people you go to for your health are telling you. It doesn't make sense.

 

[The Derp]

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.

OK, so what is the solution? Capping the amount you personally can get from a lawsuit? Would you be content with a capped malpractice amount if you were the one who was the victim of malpractice? What if it was your child? I find it hard to believe you'd be OK with a six-figure settlement if the doctor, say, accidentally sterilized your kid.

 

[healthmyths]

First of all if you and everyone else would just stop getting so hyperventilating about the "health care crisis" as there never was one! It was a phony premise that
A) There were 46 million uninsured. B) half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition!
Both gigantic lies that created this "health crisis".
So if we'd just stop for awhile this crap about Obamacare solving the problem WHEN there never was ONE to solve!
Another problem is the taking of a single event and making it sound like it happens ALL THE TIME!

You and almost everyone like you seem to make an anecdotal...i.e. the EXCEPTION rather than the rule!
First of all NOT all physicians are f...kups!

Yet you want ALL of us to pay for it i.e. through higher insurance premiums because as I've said often... the insurance companies don't care!
They simply raise the premiums as the claims' costs go up. And don't give the crap about evil profit taking insurance companies.
Bankrupting insurance companies is not the answer.
And then we have the idiots in favor of the "single payer" system seem to forget one simple fact.
If there is a single payer then the health care practitioners can't be sued!

Now here is possible an answer. A POSSIBLE answer!
The Patients’ Compensation System, now under consideration in the Georgia and Florida legislatures, would eliminate the possibility of any physician or hospital ever being sued again. It would repeal our broken medical tort system, replacing it with a no-blame, administrative system which allows a panel of experts to hear medical claims in the event that a patient has been harmed. Patients’ claims would be heard more quickly and they would be compensated in a manner similar to our current legal system.
The system would be funded with current medical liability premiums and would not require a tax increase or use taxpayer dollars to administer. Most importantly, doctors could concentrate on practicing medicine without the fear of being sued, thus eliminating the need to order unnecessary tests.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease


With no need to fear lawsuits, doctors would no longer need to practice defensive medicine. That would save all of us billions of dollars. Healthcare costs would start to decrease, as would health insurance premiums. BioScience Valuation estimates that a PCS would save an estimated $840 billion over 10 years in private and government-funded health insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare as physicians stop ordering unnecessary tests and procedures.

The Affordable Care Act did nothing to address defensive medicine nor do anything substantive to make healthcare more affordable.
With health insurers seeking premium hikes as high as 53 percent in some states in 2016, something dramatic has to be done to slice healthcare costs. Attacking defensive medicine the way doctors attack and treat diseases may be the only method we have to cure this very costly economic condition.
Reforming Defensive Medicine Is Key To Reducing Healthcare Costs

 

[Flopper]

I don't really understand the concept of defensive medicine. Doctor sees patient. Patient has a complaint. The doctor addresses that complaint, and then orders more testing in case he is wrong or is looking for something, anything else? Do doctors know what they are doing or are they just guessing? On what condition does a doctor do surgery that isn't necessary? That to me is more malpractice then not doing surgery and finding out later it was needed.

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

But of course you are defending lawyers then!
The proof Tort reform works is the 1946 Federal Tort Act! When over half the doctors surveyed who are under federal contract report they DON"T practice "defensive medicine" isn't that proof that it works? Again why are you defending lawyers? As was shown "Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss. A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

And again. Where are your links regarding "defensive medicine began in 2004"?
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf

"For more then two decades!!!! And this was written in 1994!
So once again... simple search on the Internet surely would save you embarrassment of ignorance!
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about because EVERY TIME you come up with some personal observation... that's the problem!
You are just plain lazy! You make opinions with NO substantiation of your opinion!

Doctors protected under the 1946 law have no reason to say they practice defensive medicine because they are protected from legal action. Doctors not protected by the law certainly have reason to claim they practice defensive medicine because they want that protection. It's really pretty simple. Doctors who want tort reform claim they practice defensive medicine. Just because they make claim, does not make true.

Well so far you have been wrong on several accounts. And now you are making a personal and frankly wacky statement.
Duh! So if doctors under federal protection have no reason to practice defensive medicine and they say they don't what are you SAYING?
AND YES doctors that don't have tort protection then DO defensive medicine. What is the issue here?
They SAY they do and they DO! I mean duplicate tests are a reality! Referring to specialists are a reality!
You make NO sense because THEY do practice defensive medicine. It's been known decades ago!
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf
What more reality then the above statements...made not by people like you who have NO experience and just spouting your personal opinion!
Get some proof and maybe I'll believe you but so far I've GIVEN you links. I'm not making up statements like you are! I'm hopefully educating you on reality.
Now unless you are a lawyer, have a relative that's a lawyer, what kind of thinking do you have to continually state the obvious! Yes doctors under 1946 Tort Act don't practicedefensive medicine and doctors not covered by the 1946 Tort DO! Why are you so against these facts?

I'm saying doctors who are protected from legal action are not going to claim they practice defense medicine because there is no reason to make such a claim.

However, doctors who are not protected certainly have reason to claim they practice defense medicine because they want to be protected from legal action.

Most doctors claim to support tort reform which will put millions of dollars in their pockets. And guess what. Most doctors claim to practice defense medicine which is a primary argument for tort reform. Surely you can understand their motivation in making such a claim.

 

[healthmyths]

Don't ask me! I just provide the facts that 90% of doctors surveyed STATED very clearly they practice defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits.
Now do most of them do so NOW as habit? I'm sure many do. It is now just a routine ... order duplicate tests.
But to question the doctors that surveyed that say they practice defensive medicine and at the same time take their orders regarding your health doesn't make sense!
According to you the doctor is qualified to order the tests but when it comes to the doctor telling you as the studies have shown that they are telling you they practice
'defensive medicine" yet you don't believe them? Why is that possible?
You believe the doctor is competent to take care of you but when it comes to his doing "defensive medicine" you don't believe him or the 90% of physicians that agree?

Conclusions
An opportunity exists to save $6.5 trillion over the next 10 years. However, traditional tort reform will not solve this problem. It may reduce malpractice costs, but until physicians are protected from being personally financially liable for unintended mistakes and omissions, they will continue ordering unnecessary test and treatments to avoid lawsuits.

Gallup Survey Metholodology
Between December 2009 and January 2010, Gallup conducted telephone interviews with 462 randomly selected practicing physicians from across the U.S.

Jackson Healthcare Survey Metholodology
In December 2009, Jackson Healthcare invited 138,686 physicians to participate in a confidential online survey in an effort to quantify the costs and impact of defensive medicine. Over 3,000 physicians spanning all states and medical specialties completed the survey, a 2.21 percent response rate. The survey error range is at the 95% confidence level: +/-1.15 percent.

And yet you still don't believe these physicians? WHY do you find it so hard to believe them? You aren't a lawyer or have a lawyer in your family do you?

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

But of course you are defending lawyers then!
The proof Tort reform works is the 1946 Federal Tort Act! When over half the doctors surveyed who are under federal contract report they DON"T practice "defensive medicine" isn't that proof that it works? Again why are you defending lawyers? As was shown "Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss. A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

And again. Where are your links regarding "defensive medicine began in 2004"?
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf

"For more then two decades!!!! And this was written in 1994!
So once again... simple search on the Internet surely would save you embarrassment of ignorance!
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about because EVERY TIME you come up with some personal observation... that's the problem!
You are just plain lazy! You make opinions with NO substantiation of your opinion!

Doctors protected under the 1946 law have no reason to say they practice defensive medicine because they are protected from legal action. Doctors not protected by the law certainly have reason to claim they practice defensive medicine because they want that protection. It's really pretty simple. Doctors who want tort reform claim they practice defensive medicine. Just because they make claim, does not make true.

Well so far you have been wrong on several accounts. And now you are making a personal and frankly wacky statement.
Duh! So if doctors under federal protection have no reason to practice defensive medicine and they say they don't what are you SAYING?
AND YES doctors that don't have tort protection then DO defensive medicine. What is the issue here?
They SAY they do and they DO! I mean duplicate tests are a reality! Referring to specialists are a reality!
You make NO sense because THEY do practice defensive medicine. It's been known decades ago!
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf
What more reality then the above statements...made not by people like you who have NO experience and just spouting your personal opinion!
Get some proof and maybe I'll believe you but so far I've GIVEN you links. I'm not making up statements like you are! I'm hopefully educating you on reality.
Now unless you are a lawyer, have a relative that's a lawyer, what kind of thinking do you have to continually state the obvious! Yes doctors under 1946 Tort Act don't practicedefensive medicine and doctors not covered by the 1946 Tort DO! Why are you so against these facts?

I'm saying doctors who are protected from legal action are not going to claim they practice defense medicine because there is no reason to make such a claim.

However, doctors who are not protected certainly have reason to claim they practice defense medicine because they want to be protected from legal action.

Most doctors claim to support tort reform which will put millions of dollars in their pockets. And guess what. Most doctors claim to practice defense medicine which is a primary argument for tort reform. Surely you can understand their motivation in making such a claim.

Now your first premise makes sense, federal contracted physicians can't be sued, hence they don't need to do "defensive medicine"....
DUH!!!! Wow how revealing!

But your second premise???? You never heard of the Stark law evidently.
Stark Law is a set of United States federal laws that prohibit physician self-referral, specifically a referral by a physician of a Medicare or Medicaid patient to an entity providing designated health services ("DHS") if the physician (or an immediate family member) has a financial relationship with that entity.
Stark Law - Wikipedia

Do you understand?
Those greedy doctors don't make anything off of "duplicate tests" or off referrals!

Again why are you so defensive of LAWYERS and don't trust the people that take care of your body to tell you their position, i.e. they practice defensive medicine
out of fear of being sued!
It is plain as day that you are so hesitate to blame the lawyers!

Finally, I am really surprised how truly lacking in any scholarly effort to have proof of your statements!
This totally shows how inept your uninformed opinions are as AGAIN YOU have NOT shown ANY links regarding putting "millions in their pockets"!
I guess what really surprises me though is your defensive of lawyers! My goodness most people have a low opinion of them primarily because as one of
the names applied "ambulance chasers" is so evident! Are you a lawyer? I don't think so because you don't show any inclination of substantiating your statements!

 

[Flopper]

Of course doctors are going to say they practice defense medicine. They want the government to pass tort reform to keep people from suing them.
The whole concept of defensive medicine began in 2004 when republicans proposed tort reform as a part of republican healthcare legislation to counter the Clinton plan.

But of course you are defending lawyers then!
The proof Tort reform works is the 1946 Federal Tort Act! When over half the doctors surveyed who are under federal contract report they DON"T practice "defensive medicine" isn't that proof that it works? Again why are you defending lawyers? As was shown "Currently, very few patients who are harmed are compensated for their loss. A recent report by Emory University scholar Joanna Shepherd-Bailey found that attorneys rarely take cases in which compensation is less than $500,000.
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease

And again. Where are your links regarding "defensive medicine began in 2004"?
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf

"For more then two decades!!!! And this was written in 1994!
So once again... simple search on the Internet surely would save you embarrassment of ignorance!
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about because EVERY TIME you come up with some personal observation... that's the problem!
You are just plain lazy! You make opinions with NO substantiation of your opinion!

Doctors protected under the 1946 law have no reason to say they practice defensive medicine because they are protected from legal action. Doctors not protected by the law certainly have reason to claim they practice defensive medicine because they want that protection. It's really pretty simple. Doctors who want tort reform claim they practice defensive medicine. Just because they make claim, does not make true.

Well so far you have been wrong on several accounts. And now you are making a personal and frankly wacky statement.
Duh! So if doctors under federal protection have no reason to practice defensive medicine and they say they don't what are you SAYING?
AND YES doctors that don't have tort protection then DO defensive medicine. What is the issue here?
They SAY they do and they DO! I mean duplicate tests are a reality! Referring to specialists are a reality!
You make NO sense because THEY do practice defensive medicine. It's been known decades ago!
Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice July 1994
For more than two decades many physicians. researchers, and government officials have claimed that the most damaging and costly result of the medical malpractice system as it has evolved in the United States is the practice of defensive medicine: the ordering of tests, procedures, and visits, or avoidance of certain procedures or patients, due to concern about malpractice liability risk.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9405.pdf
What more reality then the above statements...made not by people like you who have NO experience and just spouting your personal opinion!
Get some proof and maybe I'll believe you but so far I've GIVEN you links. I'm not making up statements like you are! I'm hopefully educating you on reality.
Now unless you are a lawyer, have a relative that's a lawyer, what kind of thinking do you have to continually state the obvious! Yes doctors under 1946 Tort Act don't practicedefensive medicine and doctors not covered by the 1946 Tort DO! Why are you so against these facts?

I'm saying doctors who are protected from legal action are not going to claim they practice defense medicine because there is no reason to make such a claim.

However, doctors who are not protected certainly have reason to claim they practice defense medicine because they want to be protected from legal action.

Most doctors claim to support tort reform which will put millions of dollars in their pockets. And guess what. Most doctors claim to practice defense medicine which is a primary argument for tort reform. Surely you can understand their motivation in making such a claim.

Now your first premise makes sense, federal contracted physicians can't be sued, hence they don't need to do "defensive medicine"....
DUH!!!! Wow how revealing!

But your second premise???? You never heard of the Stark law evidently.
Stark Law is a set of United States federal laws that prohibit physician self-referral, specifically a referral by a physician of a Medicare or Medicaid patient to an entity providing designated health services ("DHS") if the physician (or an immediate family member) has a financial relationship with that entity.
Stark Law - Wikipedia

Do you understand?
Those greedy doctors don't make anything off of "duplicate tests" or off referrals!

Again why are you so defensive of LAWYERS and don't trust the people that take care of your body to tell you their position, i.e. they practice defensive medicine
out of fear of being sued!
It is plain as day that you are so hesitate to blame the lawyers!

Finally, I am really surprised how truly lacking in any scholarly effort to have proof of your statements!
This totally shows how inept your uninformed opinions are as AGAIN YOU have NOT shown ANY links regarding putting "millions in their pockets"!
I guess what really surprises me though is your defensive of lawyers! My goodness most people have a low opinion of them primarily because as one of
the names applied "ambulance chasers" is so evident! Are you a lawyer? I don't think so because you don't show any inclination of substantiating your statements!

Doctors do make money off tests in several ways. First, almost 40% of our doctors are salaried; that is they work in hospitals, large clinics, or group medical facilities. Most of these places have extensive labs, radiology depts, out patient services, etc that depend on the doctors in the organization ordering services. Like any business, employees that generate business are treated well, bonuses, favorable assignments, promotions, consultation fees, etc. Secondly, whenever doctors order services for patients, there is always followups, office visits, consultations with other doctors, yearly visits. This is one of the ways doctors build their practice.

Defensive medicine is different for every doctor. For some doctors running additional tests, even thou the chances of a positive are very small is just good medical practice. The doctor says, I want to rule out any really serious problems by getting a CT Scan. Although it's one in a thousand chance that it will show something really bad, no doctor wants to misdiagnose a patient and miss a serious problem, regardless of whether they fear being sued or not. Some doctors will run additional tests because the hospital or clinic is pushing the doctor to do so in order to generate more revenue. Today, with insurance plans paying most and sometime all the cost, doctors are reluctant not to order tests that shed light on the patients problem. There are many reason doctors do extensive testing. I suspect being sued in not a primary cause.

I ran across some interesting statistics about doctors being sued. For doctors that retire at age 65, the chance that they will be individually sued is only 1 in 5. The Chance that they will be sued due a misdiagnosis in 1 in 3. Given that half of the malpractice suits are dropped by the plaintiff, the chance of a doctor being sued during his 35 year career due to missed diagnosis is less that 1 in 30. The chance that a doctor that runs many unneeded tests will have problems with insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid due to over testing is far greater.
Medscape Malpractice Report 2015: Why Most Doctors Get Sued