Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
I am not sure where you missed the whole point of this thread, that there is likely going to be a change in Medicare to change that rule that has existed since the Omnibus bill of 1989, thus the title "Medicare to allow balance billing"
Dr Tom Price who is the new head of HHS, has very strongly indicated he wants to change it on multiple occasions. He had introduced bills to do exactly that as a member of congress. It will require a change in the law, but he is very much in a position to do it, and has the support of the AMA. So this thread is a heads up to inform this Medicare using community of what is coming soon to a doctor's office near you. Higher costs for medical care if this is enacted. See the links for more information.
|
I guess I "missed" it since it was not mentioned in the OP, but yes, Tom Price is in love with this idea, God only knows why. Sounds pretty stupid to me, it will just stick seniors with more out of pocket expense and doctors with more collection problems. In fact, when the participating provider program started in the 80's, the big attraction was that doctors got paid directly and avoided those collection issues. I'm not sure that has changed. And since 93% of physicians accept Medicare, why the "need" to have more physicians participate. Let's hope smarter people prevail on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
80% of malpractice claims are closed with zero dollar payment to the plaintiff. All claims whether settled or determined by a jury where there is a payment no matter how small are reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank which can be accessed by state boards, hospitals, insurance companies, and other authorized entities, but not the general public. All actions where a suit was filed are public record even if they are dropped. But you would have to go to the court to find the documents in almost all jurisdictions.
Lawyers who represented injured plaintiffs are not dirtbags. They are there to protect those harmed by someone else and attempt to make them or their heirs as whole as possible when a doctor deviates from standard of care. The legal process also can be a motivation for improving care as it provides guidance on what kind of errors are unacceptable [not all errors are malpractice]. You want the sponge count done before they close the incision, thank a malpractice lawyer. You want the doctor to double check whether it is your left kidney not your right to remove? Or to know the side effects of the medication and inform you? Or to read your mammogram carefully?
Yes, all doctors never intend to harm a patient [I hope] but when they do it is the tort system which holds them accountable. It is no different than a driver who for 30 years never had a ticket or sped, but that one day failed to see a stop sign and injured an innocent pedestrian. We all understand the driver didn't mean to do it, never did it before, promises to be more attentive in the future.. but there will be and should be a mechanism to compensate the injured. In Florida and most other states as a precondition for filing a medical malpractice case you must have an affidavit from a medical professional stating that you have a valid medical malpractice claim. So it is not the "dirtbag" who says there was possible malpractice it was a medical professional who reviewed the case prior to filing. |
Paragraph 1---VERY GOOD
Paragraph 2---Not so much. They're not dirtbags, they just act like them. Their number 1 motivation---WINNING--it's a game to them, with $$$$ not far behind. Protecting the rights of the injured and maintaining the fairness of the system---bottom of the list (for most). The lawyers DO NOT set the standard of care, physicians do. Lawyers EXPLOIT it for financial gain. Want a sponge count? Thank a surgeon (or a nurse) who thought it was a great idea and the other surgeons and nurses that agreed. Lawyers have no part in it, and deserve no thanks.
Want correct side surgery? That's been the principle since Hippocrates (who btw didn't have to deal with lawyers), it is only a handful of well publicized mistakes that made this a national issue. Inform patient of medication side effects??? I spent more time disabusing them of the content of the "pharmacy disinformation brochure" that lists every bad effect that ever occurred, because it was written by lawyers. Want a good mammogram reading---who doesn't, that's why radiologists train for many years. You make it sound like a lawyer is in the film room making it a good interpretation. Lawyers do have their role, but let's not glorify them or give them some role of importance that they clearly do not possess.
Paragraph 3. Do not be misled by the "certification of merit by a physician" clause---it is a total joke. A lawyer will play a round of golf with a physician friend and have him sign about 30 of these between the 6th green and 7th tee---and that's no exaggeration, I've been asked to do it. And my lawyer friend was actually shocked that I wanted to read it through to see if it actually did have merit---I doubt that ever happened to him before.