|
Healthcare costs will increase by an unpredictable amount if that bill goes through. Malpractice premiums are not an effective way of ensuring quality of care. Ultimately the cost of all those extra "defensive medicine" tests will be passed along to you via higher premiums and copays.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
nm posted:They're not removing caps, they're indexing them to inflation. You don't think increasing caps will increase the number of frivolous lawsuits from predatory lawyers? Increased caps = increased settlement amounts from hospitals and insurers who don't want to fight these edge cases that you describe. The number of cases will increase. These costs will absolutely be passed onto the consumer and hidden in the overall cost of healthcare. As a bonus it will increase defensive medicine testing with likely no additional benefit to quality of care, and also probably reduce transparency because they will be punished that much more for making an error. What I have seen proposed is a "health court" independent of an adversarial legal system, composed of lawyers and healthcare professionals and actuarials, who would convene when a patient suffers harm, and determine appropriate compensation. I have not seen this idea take off because nobody wants to champion this idea (because nobody stands to get rich from it).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I agree that predatory billing is an issue, made possible by a lack of cost transparency. Increasing malpractice caps will not improve cost transparency in a consistent, meaningful way. It may punish good actors in a way not originally intended and possibly worsen transparency. I feel pretty confident saying that it will increase overall cost for the healthcare system. Doctors are human, and as a result are very bad at estimating the likelihood of rare events. Thus the perception that increased malpractice lawsuits are forthcoming will probably get doctors to order more unnecessary tests out of fear, whether you think that fear is founded or unfounded.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The cost of malpractice insurance is an invisibly tiny sliver of overall medical costs to Americans. It could triple overnight and we would not even notice a difference in costs. It is an absolutely ridiculous red herring consistently trotted out by conservatives to redirect attention away from the actual thing that would save everyone in the country massive amounts of money while also providing much better care: a national healthcare system. The cost of defensive medicine and malpractice insurance adds up somewhere to 2-5% of total US healthcare costs, which are like 18% of the U.S. GDP. I wouldn't dismiss that as an "invisibly tiny sliver."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
quote:I'd rather have unnecessary tests than have millions of people uninsured This is not a dichotomous choice and we shouldn't be framing it as such. Agreed that everyone should be insured so we can continue to have serious discussions about healthcare costs in this country. quote:the practice of massively inflating costs for the uninsured or underinsured, combined with the general practice of operating medical care as a for-profit industry, surely amount to many times more waste. I absolutely agree, but the proposed bill does not address this issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
That's my point as well. This bill is a big ol poke in the eye to healthcare providers. I think just keeping it focused on limiting opiate prescriptions (the original intent of the bill as I understand) would have been less controversial and could have been much more productive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Thank you for the citations. I continue to agree with your points, but the proposed bill doesn't address this, which is my point. This bill doesn't get us anywhere closer to fixing the issues that you bring up. edit: I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I hope you guys see that this bill is designed to create controversy and distract voters from thinking about real drivers of cost. However I am pretty confident in saying that this bill will do nothing to reduce cost of care. It could improve quality of care by reducing the frequency of doctor shopping for opiates, but it will also likely increase cost and paradoxically reduce quality of care by increasing the frequency of unnecessary lab testing. Guy Farting fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
I disagree. If this bill passes then CA will take a step backwards with regards to actually caring for harmed patients. We will further entrench the current system. Malpractice suits don't come anywhere close to making patients whole. And what about the patients who lose their cases but still deserve help? This bill ignores them. Errors will continue to happen. Instead of rewarding successful litigation, we should be studying errors to reduce their frequency. We could be voting on bills to increase patient safety research funding or mandating third party mediation following a medical error.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
nm posted:Rewarding litigation? We're making people whole for doctor gently caress-ups. Yes, money doesn't make up for it, but it sure helps more than nothing and a few words about how we'll learn not to do it again. An example not from medicine. My mother was shot in the 3rd grade by a bunch of rich assholes. She lost sight out of her right eye. She won a fairly substantial lawsuit against the parents. While this didn't bring her eye back, it did means she could go to college on the money and get a Ph.D. Is it as good as an eye, but it gave someone who was knocked down by someone else a leg up. Sorry about your mom. Yes, I agree if a party literally maliciously shoots somebody in the eye with a gun, then the victim is due a large amount of money from the offending party. I don't think you can compare that scenario to the patient-physician relationship. quote:Why do you doctors think you are deserving of more legal protection than cops, lawyers, firefighters, or anyone else? I'm not sure what your point is here. Actions of cops and firefighters are sanctioned by the department and by proxy the government. Risk is generally diffused across the entire department and the government on some level, which can absorb higher costs. By contrast if a lone practitioner is on the receiving end of a malpractice suit, they assume sole responsibility. They and their insurance company are on the hook. The insurance company can probably absorb costs up to a point, but if the practitioner loses a large case then their premiums increase substantially and they could be forced out of the profession. You could argue that this helps filter out bad actors, but I argue that the current system does not differentiate between good actors and bad actors -- only between lucky and unlucky ones. Also I really don't know why physician drug testing was added to this bill without leaving exceptions for marijuana. Again, a big ol poke in the eye. vv Yes! Not the only reason but luck plays a big part! "only" was probably too strong of a word thanks for quoting me before I had a chance to edit it out Guy Farting fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:doctors get kickbacks for prescribing drugs to patients. this is illegal
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh, just looked it up. You are right. Still this is the same kind of distinction as 'doctors are not in a union'--for all intents and purposes, their deals with pharmaceutical companies function like kickbacks, just like their professional organizations basically provide a lot of the same functions as a union. idk i don't have any "deals" with pharmacy companies and they're not exactly lining my apartment walls with golf clubs or anything classically, pharm companies will give "free samples" of medications to primary care doctors to distribute to their patients, to get them started on these chronic meds. once the samples run out then the insurance company will be on the hook for them. maybe they'll bring some subway sandwiches or maggianos for the office another example is medical device companies hosting dinners and inviting surgeons to come get a free dinner at a nice restaurant and learn about their marginally newer heart valve or joint. the goal being to influence these surgeons to stock these devices at local surgery centers. doctors by and large prescribe based on their understanding of evidence and their own personal experiences with meds and devices. pharma influence mostly comes from trying to change physicians understanding of the evidence (with their own biased studies), and maybe an occasional meal. there's influence to be sure, but not with a literal cash handout. imo direct to consumer marketing of profit driving medications is also an issue, but there's no political will to get that addressed either
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
we are all puppets to advertisements in general. drink your ovaltine. vote yes on the soda tax tho
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
reminder that calexit is probably funded by russia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Given that secession of any state is a practical impossibility, I'm not really sure that the funding source of a secessionist movement matters all that much. it will siphon political energy which should be spent against the trump ryan agenda. less dissent would be good for russia it also gives conservatives another dumb reason to dismiss our concerns about federal overreach (not that they need any reason)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
here's my hot take: hate speech should not be defended milo has almost certainly caused trans people and POC to attempt or succeed at suicide so he can gently caress right off
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
1 2 4 are good 3 is ehh 5 is very bad 6 is pretty bad 7 is whatever 8 is good if you're a young healthy socialist, bad if you ever plan to get sick 10 nobody knows what will happen either way 11 is bad 12 is incrementally good I'm marginally left of a neolib fwiw
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Bummed about about Nunes Denham and Hunter. If they survived this year they're probably safe for a while. Unless Hunter goes to prison. No real surprises in SF as far as I can tell, pending some ranked choice shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Leland Yee
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 15:48
|
|