The SustiNet program would create large pools of people, including those who can't currently afford health insurance, that would theoretically drive down premium costs by competing with the plans of private insurers. Among other cost savings, it would designate a single doctor or practice for each patient, to reduce emergency care use, and create new "best-use" procedures for a variety of ailments to reduce the number of tests doctors order.As screws continue to get tightened on doctors' ability to order tests thanks to third-party oversight bodies, look for more physicians to play hardball about liability limits at both the state AND national levels.
But a key provision of the plan was that doctors, in return for following the new procedures and ordering fewer tests, would be protected from malpractice suits if the outcome of a case was not favorable for the patient. However, with backing from the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, that provision was removed from the SustiNet bill two weeks ago.
Cardiologists are considered a particularly important group for the new best-use procedures because they tend to order a battery of expensive tests when patients show signs of heart trouble. If specialists like them failed to participate in the SustiNet program, cutting medical costs could be more difficult.
On Tuesday, the Connecticut chapter of the American College of Cardiology withdrew its support for the bill and said that it would circulate an open letter to House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy saying that it could not support the bill without the malpractice protection.
Doctors are being forced to do do their part to control health care costs as a result of our increasingly government-controlled health care initiatives. It's high time for the trial lawyers' to do the same. And there's already precedent to doing so: just look to the legal protections military doctors enjoy when caring for their members. While legal recourse still exists in the military, the challenge of suing the government on behalf of their employees thwarts frivolous claims.
-Wes
5 comments:
So Joe Sixpack or Willy the Wino starts having heart problems and goes for free to his friendly cardiologist who he sees as a ticket for a lawsuit and the good life...
I might have to take up residence in Thailand and just pay cash...
Well said, Wes.
How does paying hardball on behalf of liability carriers help doctors? Have the carriers promised them something?
"Doctors are being forced to do do their part to control health care costs as a result of our increasingly government-controlled health care initiatives. It's high time for the trial lawyers' to do the same. And there's already precedent to doing so: just look to the legal protections military doctors enjoy when caring for their members. While legal recourse still exists in the military, the challenge of suing the government on behalf of their employees thwarts frivolous claims."
Since damage caps have never been shown, despite 40 years of having them, to reduce healthcare costs, why should that be a motivation for malpractice victims to support not receiving the full compensation for their injury?
If you want to get the protections of being a government employee - become one. Make the tradeoff in terms of income. You don't get it both ways.
It's a sad joke that "doctors are doing their part to control healthcare costs."
If docs actually cared about patients, they would publish their prices for all procedures and stop the wallet biopsies, charging all comers the same price, while giving heavy discounts (40%) to those who pay cash on the barrel-head, not complicating the doc's life with insurance.
That's what Walmart does, and I can't wait until Walmart starts managing Amerikan medical care. That's when we'll finally get value for our healthcare dollar, just like we get value for our merchandise dollar at Walmart, Sears, Lowe's and Home Depot.
Post a Comment