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

[healthmyths]

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

You wrote 40% of our doctors are salaried. Where did you get that statistic?
How do YOU know "Defensive medicine is different for every doctor." Again that is not substantiated by any facts.
Further you are putting YOU personal perception into the FACTS..."I suspect being sued in not a primary cause."
I suspect you are a lawyer, or a family member is a lawyer because you keep defending the wasteful spending of over $800 billion a year which is what the
nearly 138,686 physicians invited 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. https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/

From your above link:
A 2010 American Medical Association (AMA) survey reported that among all physicians, 61% had been sued by late career.[1]
You wrote:"For doctors that retire at age 65, the chance that they will be individually sued is only 1 in 5. "
DUH! You provided a misleading statement ON two counts:
A) If the doctor is 60 -64 you used the Individual statistic: But as one of many parties: 63%!
B) Please... the chances of me being hit by a car at my age 74 is far less then a person at age 34! DUH!!!
You also conveniently left out this statistic:
-- 80% of doctors named in lawsuits always,almost all the time and occasionally have malpractice threat influence thinking or action.
-- Forty percent of physician respondents who were sued spent more than 50 hours in court. One physician complained, "Waste of my time. In court for 8 weeks.
Couldn't practice. I should have sued the patient for lost wages." Another said, "Trial lasted 3 weeks—lost 12 pounds."

 

[Freewill]

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.

As with all business, the bottom line is the bottom line. Whatever patient they see there will be another just like then the next day.

 

[Freewill]

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

 

[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.

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

ONCE again... you are reading the wrong sources! CNN? GEEZ these people depend on "anonymous sources"!
FACT:
That is NO WHERE NEAR CNN dumb ass number of $2.5 trillion!
The entire National Health Expenditure is (ALL including health insurance companies, individuals AND government) OK????

• NHE grew 5.8% to $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person, and accounted for 17.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE.
• Medicaid spending grew 9.7% to $545.1 billion in 2015, or 17 percent of total NHE

NHE Fact Sheet - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Get your facts straight!

 

[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.

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

PLEASE DON"T talk to me about "doing the math!!! ..... 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is NOT 0.00212 or 0.212 percent savings but 0.000000212%
Evidently you don't know that 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is 2.5 quintrillion!
Number Notation
So do your math correctly before writing it. Check your work. Because 5.3 Billion divided by 2.5 trillion (which is a wrong number again!!) IS 0.212%.
Geez...
But CNN didn't ask the thousands of doctors as Gallup and JacksonHealth DID!
And the savings is accomplished by reducing the amount and number of CLAIMS processed by the payers!
With just 20% reduction of the $1 trillion in wasted claims that's $200 billion a year NOT paid out by insurance companies.
As a result you are evidently NOT aware but insurance companies have to justify their premiums in EACH state that they sell.
So if their claim expenses go dramatically down, i.e. $200 billion a year,
1) The insurance companies can't defend a premium increase to the states' insurance boards.
2) They in fact would have to LOWER the premiums!

Physicians in the United States have long believed that they must practice defensive medicine to diminish litigation risk.
Studdert and colleagues found in a 2005 survey that 93% of “high-risk” specialists in Pennsylvania reported practicing defensive medicine11.
A 2008 study elicited a comparable reply from 83% of Massachusetts physicians13.
The findings suggest that substantial costs must be associated with defensive medicine; for example, Massachusetts physicians stated that between 20% and 30% of plain film x-rays, CT scans, MRI studies, ultrasound studies, and specialty referrals and consultations were ordered primarily for defensive purposes13.
Physicians commonly argue that tort reform must occur to reduce the overuse of expensive studies and procedures that reportedly add billions per year to health care cost.
A seminal study by Kessler and McClellan has been widely cited for the proposition that federal damage caps and other tort reform could reduce health care costs by up to 10%. (10% of 3.5 Trillion... $350 billion!)

Defensive Medicine, Cost Containment, and Reform

You still don't want though to blame the lawyers! Why???

 

[Freewill]

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

PLEASE DON"T talk to me about "doing the math!!! ..... 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is NOT 0.00212 or 0.212 percent savings but 0.000000212%
Evidently you don't know that 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is 2.5 quintrillion!
Number Notation
So do your math correctly before writing it. Check your work. Because 5.3 Billion divided by 2.5 trillion (which is a wrong number again!!) IS 0.212%.
Geez...
But CNN didn't ask the thousands of doctors as Gallup and JacksonHealth DID!
And the savings is accomplished by reducing the amount and number of CLAIMS processed by the payers!
With just 20% reduction of the $1 trillion in wasted claims that's $200 billion a year NOT paid out by insurance companies.
As a result you are evidently NOT aware but insurance companies have to justify their premiums in EACH state that they sell.
So if their claim expenses go dramatically down, i.e. $200 billion a year,
1) The insurance companies can't defend a premium increase to the states' insurance boards.
2) They in fact would have to LOWER the premiums!

Physicians in the United States have long believed that they must practice defensive medicine to diminish litigation risk.
Studdert and colleagues found in a 2005 survey that 93% of “high-risk” specialists in Pennsylvania reported practicing defensive medicine11.
A 2008 study elicited a comparable reply from 83% of Massachusetts physicians13.
The findings suggest that substantial costs must be associated with defensive medicine; for example, Massachusetts physicians stated that between 20% and 30% of plain film x-rays, CT scans, MRI studies, ultrasound studies, and specialty referrals and consultations were ordered primarily for defensive purposes13.
Physicians commonly argue that tort reform must occur to reduce the overuse of expensive studies and procedures that reportedly add billions per year to health care cost.
A seminal study by Kessler and McClellan has been widely cited for the proposition that federal damage caps and other tort reform could reduce health care costs by up to 10%. (10% of 3.5 Trillion... $350 billion!)

Defensive Medicine, Cost Containment, and Reform

You still don't want though to blame the lawyers! Why???
View attachment 142592

5.3 billion / 2.5 trillion = 0.00212 If you are having difficulty ask Seri or some other phone app more versed in math.

 

[Freewill]

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

ONCE again... you are reading the wrong sources! CNN? GEEZ these people depend on "anonymous sources"!
FACT:
That is NO WHERE NEAR CNN dumb ass number of $2.5 trillion!
The entire National Health Expenditure is (ALL including health insurance companies, individuals AND government) OK????

• NHE grew 5.8% to $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person, and accounted for 17.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE.
• Medicaid spending grew 9.7% to $545.1 billion in 2015, or 17 percent of total NHE

NHE Fact Sheet - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Get your facts straight!

OK then, use 3.2 trillion, it makes your point even less valid.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

PLEASE DON"T talk to me about "doing the math!!! ..... 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is NOT 0.00212 or 0.212 percent savings but 0.000000212%
Evidently you don't know that 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is 2.5 quintrillion!
Number Notation
So do your math correctly before writing it. Check your work. Because 5.3 Billion divided by 2.5 trillion (which is a wrong number again!!) IS 0.212%.
Geez...
But CNN didn't ask the thousands of doctors as Gallup and JacksonHealth DID!
And the savings is accomplished by reducing the amount and number of CLAIMS processed by the payers!
With just 20% reduction of the $1 trillion in wasted claims that's $200 billion a year NOT paid out by insurance companies.
As a result you are evidently NOT aware but insurance companies have to justify their premiums in EACH state that they sell.
So if their claim expenses go dramatically down, i.e. $200 billion a year,
1) The insurance companies can't defend a premium increase to the states' insurance boards.
2) They in fact would have to LOWER the premiums!

Physicians in the United States have long believed that they must practice defensive medicine to diminish litigation risk.
Studdert and colleagues found in a 2005 survey that 93% of “high-risk” specialists in Pennsylvania reported practicing defensive medicine11.
A 2008 study elicited a comparable reply from 83% of Massachusetts physicians13.
The findings suggest that substantial costs must be associated with defensive medicine; for example, Massachusetts physicians stated that between 20% and 30% of plain film x-rays, CT scans, MRI studies, ultrasound studies, and specialty referrals and consultations were ordered primarily for defensive purposes13.
Physicians commonly argue that tort reform must occur to reduce the overuse of expensive studies and procedures that reportedly add billions per year to health care cost.
A seminal study by Kessler and McClellan has been widely cited for the proposition that federal damage caps and other tort reform could reduce health care costs by up to 10%. (10% of 3.5 Trillion... $350 billion!)

Defensive Medicine, Cost Containment, and Reform

You still don't want though to blame the lawyers! Why???
View attachment 142592

5.3 billion / 2.5 trillion = 0.00212 If you are having difficulty ask Seri or some other phone app more versed in math.

YOU were the one that had the issue...5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000!

 

[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.

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.

MY doctor has never told me any such thing, nor as far as I can tell has ever practiced defensive medicine. I guess a flu shot is defensive if the person doesn't have the flu. Same with pneumonia shots and shingle shots. So yeah most doctors do practice defensive medicine in some form. I have never threatened to sue my doctor and would only if he made a mistake he should not have made and ordering test I don't need isn't one of those mistakes.

Here is an article from CNN. It states that the government spends 2.5 trillion dollars on health care a year. Wow. It further states that tort reform will save 54 billion over the next 10 years, or 5.4 billion a year. Do the math 5.3 billion divided by 2.5 trillion equals. 5,300,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000=0.00212 or . 2 percent savings. (I may have the zeros wrong bu the math is right) Make the savings anything realistic and see what it will save. With a 2.5 trillion dollar budget I am thinking, not much. I wonder how much of the 2.5 trillion is waste and fraud.

Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office is now estimating that limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- reforms favored by many Republicans -- could save the government as much as $54 billion over the next 10 years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has raised questions about how much malpractice reform would save.

The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A tort reform package that includes caps on jury awards of $500,000 for punitive damages and $250,000 for "pain and suffering" damages would lower liability insurance premiums by about 10 percent, according to a report from the nonpartisan office issued late last week.

Such laws would lower expenditures on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by roughly $41 billion, according to the report. An additional $13 billion would be gained from taxable wages over 10 years as employers reduce the amount they spend on health care.

I'm going to try to get through your very hard head the FACTS.
You quoted CNN ...."The government spends about $2.5 trillion on health care every year. " Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says - CNN.com

WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

Go to this site: CNN got it wrong!
NHE Fact Sheet - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
NHE stands for National Health Expenditure. The TOTAL expenditure $3.2 Trillion....

• NHE grew 5.8% to $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person, and accounted for 17.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE.
• Medicaid spending grew 9.7% to $545.1 billion in 2015, or 17 percent of total NHE.
• Add Medicare and Medicaid and you get $1.191 Trillion I'm shouting now!!! "GOVERNMENT SPENDING! NOT $2.5 Trillion as CNN erroneously reported!
• Private health insurance spending grew 7.2% to $1,072.1 billion in 2015, or 33 percent of total NHE

 

[Flopper]

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

You wrote 40% of our doctors are salaried. Where did you get that statistic?
How do YOU know "Defensive medicine is different for every doctor." Again that is not substantiated by any facts.
Further you are putting YOU personal perception into the FACTS..."I suspect being sued in not a primary cause."
I suspect you are a lawyer, or a family member is a lawyer because you keep defending the wasteful spending of over $800 billion a year which is what the
nearly 138,686 physicians invited 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. https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/

From your above link:
A 2010 American Medical Association (AMA) survey reported that among all physicians, 61% had been sued by late career.[1]
You wrote:"For doctors that retire at age 65, the chance that they will be individually sued is only 1 in 5. "
DUH! You provided a misleading statement ON two counts:
A) If the doctor is 60 -64 you used the Individual statistic: But as one of many parties: 63%!
B) Please... the chances of me being hit by a car at my age 74 is far less then a person at age 34! DUH!!!
You also conveniently left out this statistic:
-- 80% of doctors named in lawsuits always,almost all the time and occasionally have malpractice threat influence thinking or action.
-- Forty percent of physician respondents who were sued spent more than 50 hours in court. One physician complained, "Waste of my time. In court for 8 weeks.
Couldn't practice. I should have sued the patient for lost wages." Another said, "Trial lasted 3 weeks—lost 12 pounds."

"Today, about 60 percent of family doctors and pediatricians, 50 percent of surgeons and 25 percent of surgical subspecialists — such as ophthalmologists and ear, nose and throat surgeons — are employees rather than independent, according to the American Medical Association." The actual figure is over 40%.

Many doctors today who are salaried don't pay malpractice insurance. Their employer covers them by carrying either a blanket policy for all their employees are by self insurance. My sister who had a private practice for over 20 years. She recently sold her practice to a large hospital/clinic that now employs her. One of the perks is they insure her against malpractice.

Sorry, but I don't have the time to address all the issues in your post.

Apprehensive, Many Doctors Shift to Jobs With Salaries

 

[healthmyths]

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

You wrote 40% of our doctors are salaried. Where did you get that statistic?
How do YOU know "Defensive medicine is different for every doctor." Again that is not substantiated by any facts.
Further you are putting YOU personal perception into the FACTS..."I suspect being sued in not a primary cause."
I suspect you are a lawyer, or a family member is a lawyer because you keep defending the wasteful spending of over $800 billion a year which is what the
nearly 138,686 physicians invited 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. https://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/defensive-medicine-study-2010/

From your above link:
A 2010 American Medical Association (AMA) survey reported that among all physicians, 61% had been sued by late career.[1]
You wrote:"For doctors that retire at age 65, the chance that they will be individually sued is only 1 in 5. "
DUH! You provided a misleading statement ON two counts:
A) If the doctor is 60 -64 you used the Individual statistic: But as one of many parties: 63%!
B) Please... the chances of me being hit by a car at my age 74 is far less then a person at age 34! DUH!!!
You also conveniently left out this statistic:
-- 80% of doctors named in lawsuits always,almost all the time and occasionally have malpractice threat influence thinking or action.
-- Forty percent of physician respondents who were sued spent more than 50 hours in court. One physician complained, "Waste of my time. In court for 8 weeks.
Couldn't practice. I should have sued the patient for lost wages." Another said, "Trial lasted 3 weeks—lost 12 pounds."

"Today, about 60 percent of family doctors and pediatricians, 50 percent of surgeons and 25 percent of surgical subspecialists — such as ophthalmologists and ear, nose and throat surgeons — are employees rather than independent, according to the American Medical Association." The actual figure is over 40%.

Many doctors today who are salaried don't pay malpractice insurance. Their employer covers them by carrying either a blanket policy for all their employees are by self insurance. My sister who had a private practice for over 20 years. She recently sold her practice to a large hospital/clinic that now employs her. One of the perks is they insure her against malpractice.

Sorry, but I don't have the time to address all the issues in your post.

Apprehensive, Many Doctors Shift to Jobs With Salaries

What you really mean is you can't REFUTE the facts that I presented.
A) CNN wrong about Federal Government spending $2.5 trillion!
B) You should ASK your sister if she practiced "defensive medicine" before she became an "employee".
There is a 90% chance according to the physicians that answered the survey that she has.
Finally I still don't have a good answer from you as to why you are defending lawyers which are the Number 1 cause of "defensive medicine".
The proof is in that Jackson Health study where the OLD 1946 Federal Tort Act allowed federal doctors (and now in reality your sister) to not practice defensive medicine!
I just don't understand. I've proven with the experts that the same physicians YOU trust are telling you they practice defensive medicine...yet you are denying it.
Don't you think they would know a lot better then you?