Posts Tagged ‘health care reform’

Every year, 100,000 people die and hundreds of thousands more suffer devastating injuries thanks to medical errors. Yet instead of focusing on how to reduce the number of deaths and injuries in America, many members of Congress like Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have been making wild claims about “defensive medicine,”  a term for doctors performing unnecessary tests and procedures due to the fear of litigation. Proponents like Speaker Boehner have blamed  “defensive medicine” for rising health care costs and, in turn, attempted to bolster their case for passing legislation that would limit patients rights to sue.

Public Citizen decided it was time to take a hard look at this issue.  The end result is a report, over

"medical errors" "defensive medicine" "rising healthcare costs" "Rep. Gingrey"

Caroline Palmer from Georgia had to have both arms amputated following a medical error.

one year in the making, that examines the twelve most preeminent studies on “defensive medicine” and health care costs. Taylor Lincoln, research director for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division,  headed up this effort, putting in hundreds upon hundreds of hours with Public Citizen colleagues.

Key findings of our just released report on “Defensive Medicine: The Doctored Crisis” are:

• The most empirically sound, evidence-based studies show that liability concerns have no more than a minimal effect on health care costs;
• Doctor surveys are unreliable and provide fodder for most of the alarmist claims on defensive medicine;
• Many of the tests and procedures that some attribute to defensive medicine are the same ones that come with financial incentives for the provider; and
• Reducing litigation does not reduce health care spending because fear of litigation is unrelated to the actual risk of litigation. Litigation has declined over the past decade, while health care costs have skyrocketed.

For more, check out our press release on the report and read Andis Robeznieks piece entitled, “Consumer group goes on offense about defensive medicine.”

As  congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama are both calling for new policies on medical liability, people like Caroline Palmer hope they will keep in mind her case. In 2007, Caroline Palmer had to have both of her arms amputated due to medical errors. Recently, Palmer was upset to learn that Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia), her representative in Congress, is currently leading the push for passage of the “Help Efficient Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act of 2011, or H.R. 5,” a bill that would let all the players in the medical industry – doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, nursing home providers and the medical device industry – off the hook when they injure or kill people with recklessness.  Find out why Ms. Palmer and Public Citizen find it ironic that Representative Gingrey wants to limit patients rights to sue.

Ready to take action? Please call the Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your senators’ and/or representative’s office and tell them to oppose H.R. 5 and to stop using “defensive medicine” rationale to explain health care cost increases and justify limiting patients right to sue.

The House Judiciary Committee began its consideration today of a bill that would punish medical malpractice victims and protect negligent players in the health industry. So predisposed were the proponents to this draconian bill that they rejected modest amendments aimed at leveling the playing field for patients against the health industry.

The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act of 2011 (H.R. 5) is deeply flawed and would allow for sweeping immunity from accountability for the health industry – including doctors, nursing home operators, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

The bill imposes an arbitrary, inhumane $250,000 cap on non-economic damages that compensate patients for the pain and suffering that accompany any loss of normal functions, such as blindness, paralysis, loss of sexual function, disfigurement and loss of fertility. H.R. 5’s one-size-fits-all cap is most harmful to the catastrophically injured as well as patients who aren’t high earners, such as children and seniors.

Continue Reading

It’s telling that before the membership of the House Judiciary Committee for the 112th Congress was even finalized, incoming chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas) scheduled a hearing on medical liability. The new House leadership apparently can’t wait to get started in pushing forward draconian measures to limit patients’ rights. It is heeding its party’s talking points without noticing the facts.

Today’s hearing, creatively called “Medical Liability Reform – Cutting Costs, Spurring Investment, Creating Jobs,” will undoubtedly dig up the same old arguments trotted out in years past to support policies that would absolve negligent medical providers of responsibility for actions that injure or kill their patients.

Despite the fact that malpractice litigation and payments are at historic lows, according to the federal government’s National Practitioner Data Bank, proponents of limiting patients’ rights continue to incorrectly blame ideas like “runaway jury awards” and “defensive medicine” for the nation’s escalating health care costs.

Continue Reading

Today’s Flickr photo:

Flickr photo by derekskey

If you read one thing today…

Well, that didn’t take long. The new Republican-controlled House is already backpedaling on the rules it just established, rules promising more transparency and reform. Talk about short-lived, eh?

The GOP is quite anxious to repeal the health care law and apparently things like committee processes and open amendments are too inconvenient to stand with their new pledges.

Politico’s Jake Sherman has the details:

Continue Reading

In a draft resolution issued Tuesday, the incoming House Republican leadership directed committees to approve legislation to replace the health care law, including a mandate to “reform the medical liability system.”

Predictably, the new Republican majority has resorted to its oft-repeated mantra of calling for a federal law to restrict American patients’ rights as a way to cut health care spending. In doing so, the majority ignores evidence that such measures would not bring significant savings and in fact would carry substantial costs. It also ignores the real problem-a malpractice epidemic that kills and injures millions of Americans and costs our health care system billions of dollars each year.

The House Republican answer is for the government to continue shelling out billions to cover the costs of unnecessary and preventable medical errors, while the offenders are let off the hook and citizens suffer.

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating avoidable medical errors could potentially save $44 billion over 10 years. We call on the new Republican majority to try something different for a change. If you really want to cut health care spending, fix the patient safety crisis.

Christine Hines is civil justice counsel with Public Citizen.

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.