●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byturkeyfish ( 950384 ) writes:
Perhaps the title of the article should read lawyers and doctors create too many patients.
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
As I understand the current situation:
1) If they don't do the tests and catch a problem, the doctor and hospital will be sued.
1a) The results of a trial may put licenses at risk, depending upon the State Board's agressiveness.
2) If they due the tests either tax subsidized insurance or a Medicare type program will pay for the tests and treatment.
Conclusion: How could the situation any different.......
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDachannien ( 617929 ) writes:
Well put. Also, a diagnosis may be necessary to convince insurance to pay for the cost of the doctor's visit, so a diagnosis makes for a happy customer.
byhedwards ( 940851 ) writes:
This.
It's more common in some areas of medicine than in others. But I know that in psychiatry if they don't make a diagnosis then the insurance company definitely won't pay. Whereas if they do suddenly the patient gets crap treatment and most of their medical complaints blamed on mental illness.
What's worse is that the area of psychiatry is hardly one where diagnoses are clearly separable from other options, and doctors usually get the difference between insomnia and depression wrong leading to patients being prescribed antidepressants when bed rest would do more good. Antidepressants usually interfere with sleep leading to often times even worse sleep.
Parent
twitter
facebook
by0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) writes:
My girlfriend, a doctor, agrees. I just texted her the article and her response:
"We make more patients bc we practice defensive medicine. No one wants to be sued".
Parent
twitter
facebook
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
No offense to your girlfriend, but do you really think she's going to say "oh, yeah, we definitely are to blame"?
The Medical Malpractice Myth. [uchicago.edu]:
What do we know?
First, we know from the California study, as confirmed by more recent, better publicized studies, that the real problem is too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. Most people do not sue, which means that victims—not doctors, hospitals, or liability insurance companies—bear the lion’s share of the costs of medical malpractice.
Second, because of those same studies, we know that the real costs of medical malpractice have little to do with litigation. The real costs of medical malpractice are the lost lives, extra medical expenses, time out of work, and pain and suffering of tens of thousands of people every year, the vast majority of whom do not sue. There is lots of talk about the heavy burden that “defensive medicine” imposes on health costs, but the research shows this is not true.
Third, we know that medical malpractice insurance premiums are cyclical, and that it is not frivolous litigation or runaway juries that drive that cycle. The sharp spikes in malpractice premiums in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s are the result of financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry, not sudden changes in the litigation environment.
Fourth, we know that “undeserving” people sometimes bring medical malpractice claims because they do not know that the claims lack merit and because they cannot find out what happened to them (or their loved ones) without making a claim. Most undeserving claims disappear before trial; most trials end in a verdict for the doctor; doctors almost never pay claims out of their own pockets; and hospitals and insurance companies refuse to pay claims unless there is good evidence of malpractice. If a hospital or insurance company does settle a questionable claim to avoid a huge risk, there is a very large discount. This means that big payments to undeserving claimants are the very rare exception, not the rule.
Finally, we know that there is one sure thing—and only one thing—that the proposed remedies can be counted on to do. They can be counted on to distract attention long enough for the inevitable turn in the insurance cycle to take the edge off the doctors’ pain. That way, people can keep ignoring the real, public health problem. Injured patients and their lawyers are the messengers here, not the cause of the medical malpractice problem.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byJamesP ( 688957 ) writes:
A good job of a lawyer trying to put the blame somewhere else...
The fear of litigation alone is sufficient to make doctors order all kinds of tests
Of course doctors are to blame, they put themselves on the "all knowing" spot.
One way out would be to limit the (financial) responsibility of a doctor in case of malpractice.
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
Then there would be even more malpractice. Tons of that already. How about this simple in between step, one used in many fields, if your solution does not fix the problem you do not get paid.
If I take my car to the mechanic and he can't fix it, I don't pay him. If I buy a ladder to paint the roof and it does not work or breaks the first time I get my money back. Doctors are about the only field who expect to be paid even when they are totally useless. Then they have the gall to tell me I need a yearly checkup.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydemonlapin ( 527802 ) writes:
Goodbye, oncology. Goodbye, cardiology. Goodbye, neurology.
In fact, goodbye just about everything but infectious disease and surgery, because those are really the only fields that "fix".
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
So no one has ever been cured of cancer, or had a tumor removed/killed off. No on has ever had open heart surgery or taken medicine for heart disease?
No one has ever been treated for head injuries and had that treatment provide some amount of improvement in there condition?
I am not suggesting 100% fix. I am suggesting you give me a bill to achieve some well stated goal if you fail to meet that goal I don't pay.
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
To make this more clear on Monday I will spend $1600 on medical treatment for a cat. The Vet gave me a total break down of what they are doing and why. He also was willing to give me actual numbers on what this will do for the cat and what I am getting for my money. I have never seen a doctor do this.
bydemonlapin ( 527802 ) writes:
Incidentally, I hope your cat comes through OK.
bycetialphav ( 246516 ) writes:
The reason you get this kind of treatment from the Vet is because you are shelling money out of your own wallet for the cat. You have the option of doing nothing and letting nature take its course. Doctors who are doing voluntary procedures (e.g. Lasik, breast enhancement, etc) will give you the same treatment. When I got Lasik, my doctor gave me a fixed price that covered everything and it was all well explained.
The problem with the current medical system is that the money flows through intermediaries and not directly from the patient to the doctor. There are doctors who are trying to change this (http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_209_Cash_Doctor.mp3/view [thestory.org]), but they are the minority. Insurance should really protect against big financial burdens, not for the treatment of a cold. By having all the money flow through insurance companies, we just add inefficiencies into the system.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byrikkards ( 98006 ) writes:
Doctors don't like to do that. That would imply informed consent. As far as doctors are concerned, the best patient is one who doesn't ask questions. Some very enlightening books:
Confessions of a Medical Heretic
Overdiagnosed
Should I get tested for Cancer? Maybe not and here's why.
Reading these books you come to several conclusions:
1. You are ultimately the only person responsible for your body. If you do not understand to the smallest degree what your doctor is asking you to do and what the ramifications an
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
Thank you.
bydemonlapin ( 527802 ) writes:
I am not suggesting 100% fix.
Actually, you did, in the post just before. But putting that aside, what would your goal be for, say, hypertension? The doctor prescribes, and is paid based on blood pressure control? When it's the patient who actually takes it? And when an awful lot of drugs that are really good for your heart also tend to kill your sex life?
Tumor removal, open heart surgery, and treatment for head injuries (usually) are all surgery - which does have the benefit of a clearly defined endpoint. Oncology is about chemother
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
The doctor would set the standard. Like the mechanic and dentist and vet. They say for X I will fix/do/replace/remove Y. With chronic conditions the terms could be the doctor is paid by how long the patient lives/or by objective improvement in situation. At the level of no better than doing nothing he gets very little and if he gets to patient to the level of 50% of the patients see that outcome he gets 100% of the money with it only going up from there. For an endocrinologist it would be simple enough to b
byorangesquid ( 79734 ) writes:
Agreed. The range of human ailments is probably beyond what the vast majority of humans can really understand; this means that, in all likelihood (and I know this *is* true, as well, from surveying a number of patients with uncommon conditions) there are lots of doctors who will see a set of symptoms that are a textbook case of an uncommon disease and still mis-diagnose it. Doctors are taught to act confident in front of patients, for the simple reason that patients *do* tend to fare better if they trust
byJamesP ( 688957 ) writes:
I would mostly agree with you, but in medicine (and in several other field) there's a gotcha. You are not guaranteed to solve the problem, ever.
In the case of stairs, the problem and solution are very clear-cut. If the stairs break when I step up, it's a clear sign of a faulty product. The mechanic can solve the problem even if the solution is swapping all parts, of course there's the issue of cost, but that's pretty clear cut as well.
Now let's think of something different. You go to an ad agency and order
bythoughtfulresponse ( 2124834 ) writes:
Medicine is a slightly more complex field than fixing a car. (Being a car mechanic doesn't require over a decade of schooling)
bynedlohs ( 1335013 ) writes:
And if you have an unproductive day at work your employer doesn't pay you for it, right?
There are plenty of jobs which are paid based on time not based upon results. With those who don't get results not getting employed...
If I decided to play video all day instead of doing my work for the next week, I'd still get paid for my normal salary. I'd also be sacked as soon as someone noticed but that's very different from not being paid for the past.
If your wonderful idea ever comes to fruition expect your visits
bylsatenstein ( 949458 ) writes:
Do Doctors are like software developers. I love Dilbert.
bymcsynk ( 896173 ) writes:
In French there are two words with subtly different meanings that can be used to explain an interesting distinction : "metier" and "profession". "Mechanic" and "plumber" are "metiers". Their work is evaluated based on the _result_. "Psychotherapist", and "teacher" are "professions". Their client expects them to be _competent_.
I expect that one would generally place "doctor" in the category of "profession" and "nurse in the category of "metier". One expects a doctor to choose a logical course of action
bymeander ( 178059 ) writes:
Yep, I get tons of folk coming in asking for miracles. "How do I stop getting older?" sums up a lot of them. They want an (unavailable) miracle, but they use up my time. Should I not charge them?
My car mechanic, has worked on several of my kids cars. Sometimes he says, "this car is stuffed". I pay him for his time to work that out.
As a GP, folk pay for my time. I mostly can help in some way, but not always. If someone comes with a crazy stupid request, like can you regrow my lost leg, should I forfeit any p
bystewbacca ( 1033764 ) writes:
The fear of litigation alone is sufficient to make doctors order all kinds of tests
An irrational fear of litigation alone is sufficient to make doctors look like greedy bitches.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
On the flip side cost makes doctors in the UK not do tests that they should do. I had an undiagnosed condition for years that could have been picked up by an MRI. Eventually it got really bad but I was overseas at the time and they wanted to do an MRI. Due to cost I came home instead and it took another six months for them to figure it out by deduction rather than by testing.
byfredmosby ( 545378 ) writes:
Medical malpractice lawsuits cost billions of dollars a year. One thing decades of lawsuits have not done is reduce the number of mistakes doctors make. Why should we keep giving lawyers billions of dollars a year when they don't make us safer?
byflyingkillerrobots ( 1865630 ) writes:
Suppose one out of a hundred people will sue if something goes wrong. How many patients do you think the average doctor sees a year?
●rrent threshold.
byub3r n3u7r4l1st ( 1388939 ) writes:
My girlfriend also a doctor (soon to be).
So how many /.er's have MD girlfriends or wives?
Back to topic. Ban malpractice suits already. In Chinese culture, we believe anything happened is in our own destiny and though no fault of anyone else.
by0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) writes:
I found it MUCH easier than dating engineers (as I have in the past). This way we can both be smart without much, if any, overlap in knowledge. No fights over who is right or wrong, who did better on tests (when we were in school) etc.
byrussotto ( 537200 ) writes:
Back to topic. Ban malpractice suits already. In Chinese culture, we believe anything happened is in our own destiny and though no fault of anyone else.
Here in America we believe in cause and effect, so that's not going to go over too well.
bychudnall ( 514856 ) writes:
Also a geek married to an MD. Guess I'm not as much an anomaly as I thought.
byFujisawa Sensei ( 207127 ) writes:
Someone with mod points mod this fucking AC up!
bythomst ( 1640045 ) writes:
Someone with mod points mod this fucking AC up!
I have one mod point available - but I NEVER award mod points to Anonymous Cowards. Ever.
●rrent threshold.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
Very little, honestly. Medical malpractice suits constitute a tiny fraction of the cost of medicine; most of the blame belongs to insurance companies. There's a reason even a solo doctor's office has 5 people behind the counter handling billing, and it's not the lawyers.
byolsmeister ( 1488789 ) writes:
Medical malpractice insurance companies?
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
It takes 5 people to mail an annual insurance premium once a year?
bystewbacca ( 1033764 ) writes:
If you are walking down the street and some overly litigious person crosses your path, you can be named in a lawsuit...anybody can sue anybody for anything, doesn't mean it's legitimate. And it especially doesn't mean doctors should be able to jack up their prices for it. Ask yourself this, if a doctor is immune from malpractice and drops their malpractice coverage, do you honestly believe a simple office visit will drop from $150 down to something reasonable, like $50? Of course not. They'll continue to
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Wow, you're a lazy bum. Have you ever heard of this thing called Google? First search I got this link [wikipedia.org], with a bunch of statistics and links, including this statement:
Physician advocacy groups say 60% of liability claims against doctors are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed without payment. However even those cases have a price, costing an average of more than $22,000 to defend in 2008 ($18,000 in 2007). Physicians are found not negligent in over 90% of cases that go to trial - yet more than $110,000 (2008 estimate, $100,000 in 2007) per case is spent defending those claims
A little more Googling found this: [wa.gov] which reports approximately 850 malpractice cases in a state with 19,000 doctors. That means on average each doctor will have to defend approx one malpractice case every 20 years. In other words, for a doctor, a malpractice case is more a question of "when" than "if."
There are more accurate numbers I'm sure
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
Even then he is only out 100k every 20 years. Oh no, however will a doctor afford $5k a year to save up for this little eventuality.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
I'm going to be charitable and assume you are drunk, and thus not as stupid as your incredibly dumb comment makes you look (sorry man, it's really that bad).
The $100k is court cost alone, it doesn't include settlement, which can be in the millions. In practice, medical malpractice insurance costs $30k a year or so. This is coming out of your pocket every time you go to the doctor.
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
No it is not, free markets do not work that way. I go to the doctor and he bills what the market will bear. If he did not have to pay that he would keep the money as profit. Do you think he would give me a discount just because he is such a swell guy?
Besides you are talking about someone paying 10% of their income for insurance, not exactly a startling concept. Ever seen what insurance for a logging company costs? Mining operation? Any kind of heavy industry?
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
You are, quite frankly, the dumbest person I've ever met. You'd be way better off just saying, "I was wrong, wow, I learned something." Instead you've further made an idiot of yourself talking about mining operations. Go take a cold shower and sober up.
byjedidiah ( 1196 ) writes:
You are ranting and raving as if a multi-million dollar judgement is not infact proof that a doctor has made a dire mistake. You are really whining about doctors being held responsible for their mistakes. This is not a remarkable thing for any sort of professional or any proper adult really. Doctors need to be held accountable for their screwups and in some cases just plain greed and disregard. The same goes for incompetent nurses.
If there are too many malpractice suits, then it's time to consider cleaning up the profession in question.
Ignoring the problem will just ensure that quality of care degrades the the medical versions of Crassus never gets his due.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
No, my ranting, raving, and mocking is directed towards people who:
A) Can't do basic research to relieve their own stupid ignorance.
B) Don't have decent reading comprehension.
C) Are lost in the depths of some bizarre conspiracy theory, or are caught in serious logical fallacies.
I don't mock people who merely disagree with me. Read my posts again, and you'll see that.
You bring up an interesting point (although without any citation)
If there are too many malpractice suits, then it's time to consider cleaning up the profession in question.
This is something worth looking into. Preliminary research suggests tha
byDriedClexler ( 814907 ) writes:
You are ranting and raving as if a multi-million dollar judgement is not infact proof that a doctor has made a dire mistake
No, the fact that John Edwards could convinced 12 mouth-breathers through emotional rhetoric that a baby with birth defects is the fault of the doctor who was just around to pull the bugger out ... isn't very good proof that the doctor has made a dire mistake.
Of course, it doesn't help that the doctors make their art so resistant to scrutiny, either.
bySurt ( 22457 ) writes:
Actually, that doesn't suggest that. An alternative interpretation says that malpractice is hard to prove. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you, for example, also think that the ~85% of rape trials that don't result in conviction mean that the reported rape wasn't really rape?
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2009/rape-conviction-rates-toolow.html [martinfrost.ws]
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Do you have any reason to believe that the malpractice numbers are inaccurate, or are you just looking for a way to twist the numbers to support your preconceived notion? Because it really looks like the latter.
Do not be the man who uses statistics like a drunk man uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination.
bySurt ( 22457 ) writes:
I just don't think that it's a realistic view, at all, to think that that many people are bringing merit-less claims. If you have a statistic that says a certain percentage of malpractice claims are fraudulent, that would be interesting to see. But unless you do, and again, I'd be interested to learn, I'd personally bet pretty heavily against it being more than 20%. The highest percentage claim I could find was 12.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
I just don't think that it's a realistic view, at all, to think that that many people are bringing merit-less claims.
OK, it's good to know you think things. Let me know when you have reasons for thinking them.
bySurt ( 22457 ) writes:
Same as you, but at least I had statistics on my side.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Statistics weren't on your side. The physician was found not negligent in 90% of the cases that went to court. You claimed, without evidence, that it was too high, that in fact the physicians were probably negligent in many more cases.
Your only statistic was about fraudulent cases, but just because a case is not fraudulent doesn't mean the doctor is negligent, or should pay.
bystonewallred ( 1465497 ) writes:
I have insurance on my HVAC/R business. I had a choice between saying I installed gas appliances or did not install gas appliances (natural and propane).
Being I am rather fond of my money and stuff, I took the policy that included installing gas appliances.
It cost me almost $40 bucks a year to cover my installations of gas appliances.
This is a million dollars of liability insurance BTW. The total cost of my insurance (not counting vehicle or property) is around $500 bucks a year for liability coverage of
bycinnamon colbert ( 732724 ) writes:
lets stipulate that insurance costs 30K/yr (yes, I know Obgyns on Long Island NY pay 10x roughly)
For a medium size buisness, that doesn't sound out of hand, espicially given how the doctors never censure themselves (when was the last time you saw a doc loose his license ?) and they make no effort to have a pool of money with people with serious problems (lets say, for the sake of argument, they gave you to much of a toxic drug, and you need $ kidney dialysis for the rest of your life - if there was a pool
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
oh gosh, I thought you were saying something reasonable for a while until you brought class warfare into the situation. Really? You're a vindictive brat who thinks it's ok for doctors to pay a lot because they have a lot of money? You seriously think that doctors are out to 'keep you down' or 'hurt the middle class?' Actually that's pretty good, I'm really laughing here, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Thankyou.
bygordo3000 ( 785698 ) writes:
you realize you are off on malpractice insurance costs by an order of magnitude. In 2005, in florida, Orthopedics cost about 250k to insure, brain surgery about 500k, and even GP was 70k.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
It varies widely by state. In some places, it costs as little as $6k a year for internal medicine. Florida has the most expensive malpractice insurance of all states.
bystewbacca ( 1033764 ) writes:
So what you are saying is doctors are stupid to pay for malpractice insurance, because they'll only ever be faced with it once every 20 years, and when they do, they should be able to pay out of their pocket, given how much money a doctor makes in 20 years. I'm pretty sure I could save $5k a year on a doctor's salary.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Aaaaaand I'm pretty sure you're an idiot who doesn't know how insurance works. Please turn on your brain before you type again, ever.
bystewbacca ( 1033764 ) writes:
I'm pretty sure you're a combative asshat who is too lazy to think about the numbers in your own post. I was expecting you to post something like, "doctors spend 25% of their earning defending against malpractice suits and insurance". Instead, you prove to us that the idea that doctors are jacking up practices to cover their malpractice costs is purely a myth.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
It's ok, you can be sure of anything, and your reading comprehension will still suck. Read this sentence again, "more than $110,000 (2008 estimate, $100,000 in 2007) per case is spent defending [malpractice claims that go to court]" and tell me what part of that indicates how big the settlements were in those cases. I'll tell you: no part. If you ever become a doctor, the world will be lucky you didn't become an accountant. Asshole.
byRespekMyAthorati ( 798091 ) writes:
A person who only responds to those who disagree with him by means of personal insults only succeeds in making himself look foolish.
You are under 12 years old, aren't you?
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
As mentioned earlier, I don't insult people who merely disagree with me. I insult people who:
A) Make gregarious logical errors.
B) Can't be bothered to check basic information that is easily available.
C) Lack reading comprehension.
For people who disagree with me without being idiots, I tend to investigate, understand, and figure out why their view of the world is different than mine.
byCrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) writes:
As mentioned earlier, I don't insult people who merely disagree with me. I insult people who:
A) Make gregarious logical errors.
There are really friendly logical errors? Never knew that.
By the by, I suspect you meant "egregious", not "gregarious".
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Ah yes, thanks for the tip.
bydunkelfalke ( 91624 ) writes:
I think you failed statistics.
If something statistically happens once every 20 years, it does not mean that it happens after 20 years. It can happen on the first day already.
bycinnamon colbert ( 732724 ) writes:
At 400 bucks an hour for a hot shot lawyer, that works out to ....200 hours
me thinks the lawyers are gouging the docs, the AMA had any balls, they'd have 100 dollar an hour lawyers on retainer
byjedidiah ( 1196 ) writes:
...except there is going to be no "hot shot" lawyer. It's time you people stop getting your information about the legal profession from The Brady Bunch and Ally McBeal.
The lawyer defending the Doctor is going to be some salaried guy from the insurance company that makes far less than the doctor does. Insurance means that the insurance company is on the hook for the liability and they are the ones that are going to be fronting the costs to defend a claim.
byjedidiah ( 1196 ) writes:
It is the duty of anyone making a claim to back up that claim.
Otherwise, YOU are the lazy bum.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
lol oh yeah? Do you have a citation for that claim?
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
The gp posted several times in the same thread, asking similar questions. In the time he/she spent doing that, he could have easily found the answers to his/her questions. Instead, he remained ignorant (that is, until I so kindly helped him out).
byCrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) writes:
what's the actual chance of a hospital being successfully sued, though?
It should, perhaps, be noted that even an UNSUCCESSFUL suit costs piles of money to defend against.
And even the possibility of having to spend anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions to defend yourself (even before the ruling) means doctors and hospitals will practice defensive medicine, in hopes of heading things off before it becomes time to write big checks to lawyers....
● current threshold.
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
Of course, blame the lawyers. The fact that doctors frequently get paid more the more they test has absolutely nothing to do with it.
bydrb226 ( 1938360 ) writes:
If I had to choose which to pay more, I'd choose the doctor, hands down.
bygordo3000 ( 785698 ) writes:
only rarely. if you sit down and look at the billing, the consult is worth only "x" and the doctor doesn't get paid more for ordering an MRI, blood work, etc. The lab techs, radiologist (a different doctor), and a large group of others do get that money.
The doctor can only get paid more if he can convince the insurance company your further visits are meaningful. Generally, this is a nontrivial problem
byrobotandrew ( 1167027 ) writes:
Unless of course the doctor also owns a share of the testing center, in which case he has an incentive to order more testing.
byGim Tom ( 716904 ) writes:
Not when one's health insurance has a deductible amount that is sky HI. The trend now, as if you have not noticed, is to make the "consumer" pay in order to reduce health care useage
byjeffporcaro ( 1010187 ) writes:
I'm a practicing cardiologist and see my fair share of comments on topics like this, and my responses range from sadness to amusement. The trial showing benefit from normal LDL and elevated CRP was called the JUPITER trial [wikipedia.org], and wasn't created by doctors or lawyers - it was funded by AstraZeneca, who were "doing their duty" to their shareholders by creating demand for their product, Crestor. The way drug companies do that is by funding studies, which sometimes benefits us (patients), although in my experienc
byHereIAmJH ( 1319621 ) writes:
I'm a practicing cardiologist and see my fair share of comments on topics like this, and my responses range from sadness to amusement.
...
Assuming that the results of the JUPITER trial are accurate, and by giving Crestor to 100 people with normal LDL but high CRP, I could eliminate 1 "outcome" (stroke, heart attack, or death - a composite outcome often used in trials like this), the question isn't "am I harming 99 to save 1" - the question is "am I helping this population overall." The harm was minimal, the
byDr Max ( 1696200 ) writes:
3. you need a doctors prescription/note for every bloody little thing that comes up.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
The threat of lawsuits is only a very small part of this problem, and not quite as important as some might think.
The idea these days, especially in the arena of issues like blood pressure and cholesterol levels is that there is a enormous press to get people on maintenance drugs as soon as possible, and keep them on those drugs for the rest of their lives.There's where there is a lot of steady money to be made.
I don't know how many people are familiar with the business model of average customer spend. Y
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
● current threshold.
byOpportunist ( 166417 ) writes:
Dead on.
Consider this situation: You have a patient with symptoms that might fit a disease that never occured in the area and that is virtually unknown out of some very remote area the patient hasn't even heard about. You will get sued if the patient for some odd coincident has the disease, but if you test uselessly for it, nothing bad will happen. Quite the opposite, if you happen to detect it, you might get to travel the country and hold talks about it.
Will you "waste" the money for the test? I mean, it a
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
Sounds great, for 18 years I went undiagnosed with a serious medical conditions. The impact to my health is now permanent, the perception many people have of my due to my ADD like symptoms in the past still has not changed 10 years later. 1 blood test found the problem. If I paid for it in cash it would have cost less than $200. Yet for 18 years I heard I was tired, or had too much stress, or was just depressed. No shit I was depressed, that was because of the medical problem. It fucking causes depression.
The minute we do what you are talking about my story will be very common. I would say 90% of doctors I have met could be better replaced with google and the ability for patients to order their own blood tests. They never follow up, they only order test as a last case and do nothing more than suggest the latest drug the pharma rep-whore just showed them. If that drug fails, they just try another. An expert-system on a PC would be better than them.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byOpportunist ( 166417 ) writes:
Care to inform me what it might be? It sounds awfully like my symptoms and guess what I get to swallow to counter it...
byaaronb1138 ( 2035478 ) writes:
You should see the crap being produced by the terrible union of doctors, comp sci majors, and university researchers. The expert systems being designed (primarily for iOS, not PC or generic web interfaces) are guided by the worst research and statistical models.
You're right, but the problem is the implementors are plain wrong. Wrong people, wrong degrees doing the grunt work (PhDs in education and economics doing data entry because they can't hack it in their chosen field, but some idiot signed off on t
bydeblau ( 68023 ) writes:
Lawyers don't sue people for fun, they sue people because their client told them to. Usually, because their client's a douchebag and wants to make a quick buck off a doctor that's just trying to help. Or, occasionally, because the doctor really did screw something up, but it's mostly the sue-happy patient that causes the problem.
Next time, don't shoot the messenger.
bycinnamon colbert ( 732724 ) writes:
you say that most ("usually") people suing are douchebags. You got any evidence, or is that just your unsupported opinion ?
bybhiestand ( 157373 ) writes:
you say that most ("usually") people suing are douchebags. You got any evidence, or is that just your unsupported opinion ?
I don't know about him, but I've seen data that says basically the reverse... patients are far less likely to sue doctors who apologize for their mistakes, even in surgery. Doctors who don't apologize, and perhaps treat patients less like actual people, get sued more often... and many of them repeatedly.
byrobotandrew ( 1167027 ) writes:
Lawyers sue people because they're PAID to, but how many malpractice (or any other) lawyers take on cases they think or know they're going to lose??
byNicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) writes:
Lawyers aren't actually part of the problem. This is proven by the fact that in the US there are 50 states, all 50 handle torts differently, all 50 have reformed their systems at least once to make it harder to sue, and still every goddamn Doctor in the goddamn country is paranoid about being sued.
I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure that if it was possible to create a legal system where you could sue your Doctor for being drunk, and other Doctors wouldn't go all paranoid about lawyers, one of the
● current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...