| Replaced_Texan |
04-15-2005 01:38 PM |
Tortious Interference
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I think about tort reform a lot, and I'm pretty much completely against our current medical malpractice system. That said, the Washington Post started a series last weekend that covered the unwillingness or inability of the medical profession to police its own junkies and drunks. Seriously disturbing stuff, and a few people I work with were quite disturbed to realize that a few of the doctors who were discussed had been involved in their medical care.
Generally speaking, I'd feel more confident and comfortable in my position if doctors were more-often subject to discipline. Instead, the article describes hospitals and doctors gaming the disclipline system. For example, as soon as notification was required for suspensions of 30 days or more, everybody started getting only 29 day suspensions etc....
I'll find it hard to believe if the series itself does not lead to an outcry in the DC area.
Hello
|
A similar story in the Dallas Morning News a few years ago got the legislature to beef up the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. I saw statistics from the TSBME last week on their activity in the last few years, and they're getting a lot more complaints and opening a lot more investigations in the last few years. I don't know if that is because of tort reform or because of the increased funding/support from the state. The guy from TSBME seemed to think the latter; I tend to think the former.
I will note that lately the TSBME tries a hell of a lot harder now to get itself on the front page, and most recently, they yanked a license and fined an orthopod about $750,000 here in Houston. After 20 YEARS of malpractice cases, patient deaths, and general bad reputation, they finally went after the guy. The sick part was that he was one of the top Worker's comp guys in the state, and he kept on gettnig state funding to butcher people. I think the paper said he made about $3.5 million a year through his practice.
On the peer review front, I've seen legitimate grievances come up out of quality review in hospitals, and I've seen petty, ridiculous hearings develop out of economic interests from competing physicians or the hospital. Sometimes the peer review process is great, and sometimes it's flawed. I used to represent physicians in front of peer review panels, and for the most part, everyone takes the process extremely seriously. There are good ways and bad ways (see the Polliner case) to do it.
I think that there's a difference between fucking up and being a generally bad doctor. I think that there are different redresses to address different harms as well. If I were a physician, I think I'd rather be sued than censured by the licensure board. It's a hell of a lot easier to explain the lawsuit to the credentialling committee at whatever hospital I'd be seeking privileges. I think that lawsuits play as an important role in policing the profession as peers and licensure boards, though I've seen ridiculous lawsuits come through against many of my clients. |
