The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

I get a monthly bar journal that lists the names of disbarred and reprimanded attorneys, and goes into their cases for pages and pages. I don't know of anything like that for MDs. I do know there are MDs who are sued multiple times and the AMA doesn't say boo - because MDs don't make mistakes.

http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/fa...earch?openform

Here's one that gives info on all malpractice payouts (info not easily available for attorneys):

http://profiles.massmedboard.org/Pro....asp?Brn=29562

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
It's not surprising that you defend the honor of the MDs and the insurance companies against the evil trial lawyers, but the fact remains that there is a shitload of medical malpractice going on. Doctors blame lawyers because that is what doctors do. Hating lawyers is ingrained in them from the first day of med school. But I couldn't care less whether a doctor is free to practice when and how he or she wishes, free from the crushing burden of insurance. We should be concerned about increasing the quality of health care in this country. Someone said earlier that doctors don't like to admit to mistakes. That is absolutely true. Almost all doctors have a God complex. They think they never make a mistake. If the AMA kicked out a few more of the bad apples, and mandated aggressive reductions in medical errors, you'd see the number of malpractice cases drop precipitously because a small number of doctors do most of the damage. Get rid of them and there'd be a lot fewer cases to go around. But so long as the AMA treats their bad apples the way the Catholic Church does, they won't get rid of anyone.

I get a monthly bar journal that lists the names of disbarred and reprimanded attorneys, and goes into their cases for pages and pages. I don't know of anything like that for MDs. I do know there are MDs who are sued multiple times and the AMA doesn't say boo - because MDs don't make mistakes.

The National Practitioner Data Bank was created in 1986, as part of the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (which also established the procedures for peer review in hospitals). The NPDB was finally implemented in 1990, and all medical malpractice payouts (settlement or trial), most medical board actions, and some peer review actions are reported to the data bank. (The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank was created by HIPAA in 1996, and does the same sort of thing for fraud and abuse issues.) It's a tool that is not accessible by the general public, but insurers, peer review committees and medical boards have access to the information in the data bank when they are making decisions about insuring, licensing or granting privileges to a physician.

Additionally, many states have data bases that keep track of claims information and medical board actions per individual physician. The medical board information is generally available to the public.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners have kicked it up a notch in going after bad doctors. In 2001, for example, there were 108 disciplinary actions in Texas against physicians. In 2004, there were 263. Most notoriously is the action against Eric Sheffey, an orthopedic surgeon here in Houston, who was sued over 60 times in the last 20 years, but was STILL on the Texas Workforce Commission's panel to handle worker's comp claims.

Board members upped the fine to $845,000 on the basis of 169 violations of proper patient care they found in an examination of Scheffey patient records.

That this guy was making $3.3 million dollars in 2002 from the Texas Workforce Commission, hacking people up, often unnecessarily, doesn't really make me particularly sympathetic to his malpractice insurance bitching. It does, however, make me extremely pissed off that the TSBME took so fucking long to yank his license.

ETA: Bad doctors are weeded out three ways. 1.) Medical malpractice claims, 2.) The state licensure board, and 3.) Confidential peer review actions within a healthcare facility. If numbers 2 and 3 were more vigorous, then number 1 wouldn't be as much of an issue because the physicians would be policing their own.

ETA2: Some physicians I've talked to about why #3 isn't more often used say that their response when a collegue is clearly not any good is to simply stop referring to the colleague. They think that the economic hit is enough, and they're so protective of their own licenses/privileges, they don't like to fuck with other physicians'. Also, with regard to #3, check out Polliner v. Texas Health Systems.

Note: I've defended physicians in both #2 and #3, but not #1.

ETA3: I also fully understand and probably support the physicians who are extremely, extremely pissed off that the St. Luke's Medical Tower will be named after John O'Quinn sometime next in the next month. I don't care that he gave them $25million. No building of science should be named after the man who brought the breast inplant cases upon the world.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
It's not surprising that you defend the honor of the MDs and the insurance companies against the evil trial lawyers,

I don't defend the honor of doctors. I am just simply pointed out that they have no reason to lie when they say lawyers and not insurance companys are the problem. Doctors are screwing up all the time in this country but the tort system does not seem to be addressing the problem while dramatically increasing medical costs. Patients end up paying for the high insurance rates doctors have to pay.

Trial lawyers are getting fat and the system is not getting better. It is a poor allocation of resources.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't defend the honor of doctors. I am just simply pointed out that they have no reason to lie when they say lawyers and not insurance companys are the problem. Doctors are screwing up all the time in this country but the tort system does not seem to be addressing the problem while dramatically increasing medical costs. Patients end up paying for the high insurance rates doctors have to pay.

Trial lawyers are getting fat and the system is not getting better. It is a poor allocation of resources.

Jesus H, you have your head firmly up your ass on this. It's really shocking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't defend the honor of doctors. I am just simply pointed out that they have no reason to lie when they say lawyers and not insurance companys are the problem. Doctors are screwing up all the time in this country but the tort system does not seem to be addressing the problem while dramatically increasing medical costs. Patients end up paying for the high insurance rates doctors have to pay.

Trial lawyers are getting fat and the system is not getting better. It is a poor allocation of resources.

2.
What the med system needs is a little Sharia. Say a Doctor fucks up a patient's right hand- lop off the Dr's hand. Cut off a leg accidently- same. It would mean guys can't be oby-gyn anymore, and of course women couldn't be educated at all, but we can work out something. kill an ovary with bad surgery- lose a testi, etc.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Robertson said God's message is, "This land belongs to me. You'd better leave it alone."

Under that theory, should all the people leave?



(Thanks, shifty, for posting something not about medical malpractice or tort reform. I would note that Robertson's analysis is undoubtedly correct, as he is a disinterested observer. He also told me that God wanted the chickens to die; it was his way of saying "eat more beef.")

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't defend the honor of doctors. I am just simply pointed out that they have no reason to lie when they say lawyers and not insurance companys are the problem. Doctors are screwing up all the time in this country but the tort system does not seem to be addressing the problem while dramatically increasing medical costs. Patients end up paying for the high insurance rates doctors have to pay.

Trial lawyers are getting fat and the system is not getting better. It is a poor allocation of resources.

Come now. You are arguing that the person getting sued is in the right position to determine whether there is a problem. Payouts relate to either (1) legitimate claims or (2) illegitimate claims. A cap on damages hits (1) (because we all settle the nuisance claims well below the cap). So, what docs are really saying is that they pay too much when they commit malpractice.

To return to the fox and the hens, you're letting that there fox into the henhouse. Do you expect him to leave with an empty belly?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I get a monthly bar journal that lists the names of disbarred and reprimanded attorneys, and goes into their cases for pages and pages. I don't know of anything like that for MDs. I do know there are MDs who are sued multiple times and the AMA doesn't say boo - because MDs don't make mistakes.

Do you read that journal, other than while taking a dump?

Seriously, though -- the Bar, while it may be better than the AMA, is hardly exemplary. At least in Cal. Just try finding out the reasons a lawyer was disciplined -- it's a nightmare, and not something that would help any client who was in even a slight hurry.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The National Practitioner Data Bank was created in 1986, as part of the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (which also established the procedures for peer review in hospitals). The NPDB was finally implemented in 1990, and all medical malpractice payouts (settlement or trial), most medical board actions, and some peer review actions are reported to the data bank. (The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank was created by HIPAA in 1996, and does the same sort of thing for fraud and abuse issues.) It's a tool that is not accessible by the general public, but insurers, peer review committees and medical boards have access to the information in the data bank when they are making decisions about insuring, licensing or granting privileges to a physician.

Additionally, many states have data bases that keep track of claims information and medical board actions per individual physician. The medical board information is generally available to the public.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners have kicked it up a notch in going after bad doctors. In 2001, for example, there were 108 disciplinary actions in Texas against physicians. In 2004, there were 263. Most notoriously is the action against Eric Sheffey, an orthopedic surgeon here in Houston, who was sued over 60 times in the last 20 years, but was STILL on the Texas Workforce Commission's panel to handle worker's comp claims. That this guy was making $3.3 million dollars in 2002 from the Texas Workforce Commission, hacking people up, often unnecessarily, doesn't really make me particularly sympathetic to his malpractice insurance bitching. It does, however, make me extremely pissed off that the TSBME took so fucking long to yank his license.

ETA: Bad doctors are weeded out three ways. 1.) Medical malpractice claims, 2.) The state licensure board, and 3.) Confidential peer review actions within a healthcare facility. If numbers 2 and 3 were more vigorous, then number 1 wouldn't be as much of an issue because the physicians would be policing their own.

ETA2: Some physicians I've talked to about why #3 isn't more often used say that their response when a collegue is clearly not any good is to simply stop referring to the colleague. They think that the economic hit is enough, and they're so protective of their own licenses/privileges, they don't like to fuck with other physicians'. Also, with regard to #3, check out Polliner v. Texas Health Systems.

Note: I've defended physicians in both #2 and #3, but not #1.

ETA3: I also fully understand and probably support the physicians who are extremely, extremely pissed off that the St. Luke's Medical Tower will be named after John O'Quinn sometime next in the next month. I don't care that he gave them $25million. No building of science should be named after the man who brought the breast inplant cases upon the world.

I've read this entire thread. How many CLE credits do I get?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
God wanted the chickens to die; it was his way of saying "eat more beef.")

not in today's dinners, to the contrary in the short term

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you read that journal, other than while taking a dump?

No, only when taking a dump. Thankfully, they print it on cheap paper so it's like so totally recyclable.

[viet_mom]

Hi. I doesn't look like the Detroit Board has been active, so I thought I'd post here. Just a question on legalities concerning schools/requirements for allergic kids. If anyone thinks they can help, here's the post. Thanks!!!

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...916#post231916

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by viet_mom
Hi. I doesn't look like the Detroit Board has been active, so I thought I'd post here. Just a question on legalities concerning schools/requirements for allergic kids. If anyone thinks they can help, here's the post. Thanks!!!

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...916#post231916

ummm, I've answered it. Law of the Jungle.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, I've answered it. Law of the Jungle.

Yes. In Detroit they apparently cover the malls in peanut shells just to weed out the weak kids.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No, only when taking a dump. Thankfully, they print it on cheap paper so it's like so totally recyclable.

Personally I think it chafes a bit.