Defensive Medicine

Let's pause for a moment in the debate over a patients' bill of rights and go back to the basic premise of health care. It's about helping people. It's about getting the best medical treatment. It's about you and your doctor making decisions that affect your health, your family and your life. It's not about a lawyer making those decisions. The most fundamental patients' right is access to the best possible care from the most qualified doctors.

Imaging tests such as MRIs and X-rays frequently are performed so that doctors can protect themselves from lawsuits, according to a new study. A review of 2,068 orthopedic patients throughout Pennsylvania showed that almost 35% of the imaging costs were ordered for "defensive" purposes, researchers from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia reported Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in San Diego....

Decrying the "staggering" cost of health care in America, President Bush urged the nation's doctors Thursday to stop practicing "defensive medicine" by prescribing unnecessary treatments. In return, the President said, he already has directed the Domestic Policy Council to find ways "to restore common sense and fairness to America's medical malpractice system," a major contributor to higher health costs.

Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform." You know the argument: Disgruntled patients, goaded on by unscrupulous lawyers, file frivolous malpractice lawsuits and walk off with millions of dollars in undeserved awards granted by teary-eyed jurors. Doctors respond by practicing "defensive medicine," ordering lots of unnecessary tests to cover their behinds. Bingo! Medical costs hit the stratosphere.

Fear of malpractice suits costs doctors and their patients more than $12 billion a year in insurance premiums and defensive medical procedures, accounting for 15% of all doctors' charges, American Medical Assn. researchers reported Thursday. Analysts from the AMA also concluded that much of the defensive medicine practiced in the United States is not only medically useless but does not protect physicians from being sued.

President Obama on Wednesday night called for a new look at how medical malpractice lawsuits were handled as a possible way of containing spiraling healthcare costs. During his address to Congress, Obama said that fears of lawsuits had driven doctors to practice "defensive medicine," which some think has led to expensive and unnecessary medical tests and procedures. "I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," Obama said.

Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform." You know the argument: Disgruntled patients, goaded on by unscrupulous lawyers, file frivolous malpractice lawsuits and walk off with millions of dollars in undeserved awards granted by teary-eyed jurors. Doctors respond by practicing "defensive medicine," ordering lots of unnecessary tests to cover their behinds. Bingo! Medical costs hit the stratosphere.

Imaging tests such as MRIs and X-rays frequently are performed so that doctors can protect themselves from lawsuits, according to a new study. A review of 2,068 orthopedic patients throughout Pennsylvania showed that almost 35% of the imaging costs were ordered for "defensive" purposes, researchers from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia reported Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in San Diego....

In response to "In Defense of Trial Lawyers--and Juries," by David H. Berg, Commentary, Feb. 10: Malpractice does occur, though not often. It goes without saying that patients injured by malpractice should be entitled to recover damages. Over $350 million is paid annually to compensate injured patients. California law--the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975--facilitates the availability of malpractice insurance, and thus an adequate fund of money to provide compensation to these victims.

In stating "You cannot make life risk-free" (Part A, Feb. 23), President Bush recognized a basic truth that many others intent on reducing health-care costs have failed to recognize. Uncertainty is ubiquitous in medicine. However, our current health-care system does not recognize this point. The staggering cost of health care, the practice of defensive medicine, and the medical malpractice problem, all cited by President Bush, are manifestations of the failure to adequately control and manage uncertainty.

President Obama on Wednesday night called for a new look at how medical malpractice lawsuits were handled as a possible way of containing spiraling healthcare costs. During his address to Congress, Obama said that fears of lawsuits had driven doctors to practice "defensive medicine," which some think has led to expensive and unnecessary medical tests and procedures. "I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," Obama said.

Developing a new use for the material that's already the foundation of the computer chip industry, Intel Corp. researchers have built a continuously shining silicon laser that could drive down the cost of optical networking. Such a laser could make high-bandwidth, light-based communication feasible for not only the connections between computers but also the links between components inside PCs. It also could slash the cost of lasers used in defense, medicine and other industries.

Let's pause for a moment in the debate over a patients' bill of rights and go back to the basic premise of health care. It's about helping people. It's about getting the best medical treatment. It's about you and your doctor making decisions that affect your health, your family and your life. It's not about a lawyer making those decisions. The most fundamental patients' right is access to the best possible care from the most qualified doctors.

The May 4 Orange County Voices article by Haydee V. Tillotson regarding the trial lawyers' attack on the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, specifically the medical malpractice limit on damages for "pain and suffering," was a good summary of the facts but left out one important issue. As managed care becomes near universal in California, doctors are under intense pressure to reduce patients' access to expensive technology and specialist referral. Many of these cases involve what could be called "defensive medicine."

Who is happy with American medicine? Not uninsured patients who vent their frustration with bullets in overcrowded emergency rooms. Not businessmen who undergo unnecessary procedures because surgeons know they can be coaxed into paying for them. And certainly not doctors who are quitting their profession in unprecedented numbers, fed up with the hassle of paperwork, the inefficiency of defensive medicine and, above all, the distrust and hostility of patients.

In response to "In Defense of Trial Lawyers--and Juries," by David H. Berg, Commentary, Feb. 10: Malpractice does occur, though not often. It goes without saying that patients injured by malpractice should be entitled to recover damages. Over $350 million is paid annually to compensate injured patients. California law--the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975--facilitates the availability of malpractice insurance, and thus an adequate fund of money to provide compensation to these victims.

The May 4 Orange County Voices article by Haydee V. Tillotson regarding the trial lawyers' attack on the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, specifically the medical malpractice limit on damages for "pain and suffering," was a good summary of the facts but left out one important issue. As managed care becomes near universal in California, doctors are under intense pressure to reduce patients' access to expensive technology and specialist referral. Many of these cases involve what could be called "defensive medicine."

To say that the greed of trial lawyers serves a social conscience inert everywhere else, as Murray Kempton did in his column (Editorial Pages, July 22), has to rate as one of the most ludicrous statements the usually astute Kempton has ever made. Pity us all if the only social conscience extant in this country today is contained in the force of greed of our trial lawyers. Nobody ever claimed that each and every physician is a paragon of virtue, or even infallible, or even faultless.

In stating "You cannot make life risk-free" (Part A, Feb. 23), President Bush recognized a basic truth that many others intent on reducing health-care costs have failed to recognize. Uncertainty is ubiquitous in medicine. However, our current health-care system does not recognize this point. The staggering cost of health care, the practice of defensive medicine, and the medical malpractice problem, all cited by President Bush, are manifestations of the failure to adequately control and manage uncertainty.

Decrying the "staggering" cost of health care in America, President Bush urged the nation's doctors Thursday to stop practicing "defensive medicine" by prescribing unnecessary treatments. In return, the President said, he already has directed the Domestic Policy Council to find ways "to restore common sense and fairness to America's medical malpractice system," a major contributor to higher health costs.