"Oops"..

[Steff]

US leads way in medical errors

By Susan Heavey

1 hour, 3 minutes ago

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Patients in the United States reported higher rates of medical errors and more disorganized doctor visits and out-of-pocket costs than people in Canada, Britain and three other developed countries, according to a survey released on Thursday.

 

Thirty-four percent of U.S. patients received wrong medication, improper treatment or incorrect or delayed test results during the last two years, the Commonwealth Fund found.

 

Thirty percent of Canadian patients reported similar medical errors, followed by 27 percent of those in Australia, 25 percent in New Zealand, 23 percent in Germany and 22 percent in Britain, the health care foundation said.

 

"Driven up by relatively high medication and lab or test errors, at 34 percent, the spread between the United States and the countries with the lowest error rates was wide," Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of Commonwealth Fund, wrote in the journal Health Affairs, which published the study on its Web site.

 

The Commonwealth Fund says its mission is to support independent research on health care issues.

 

Researchers, who conducted the poll between March and June, questioned adults who had experienced some kind of serious condition that required "intense" medical treatment or had been hospitalized for something other than routine pregnancy.

 

"Overall patient experiences often paint a picture of no person or team responsible for ensuring that care is coordinated and continuous, with a focus on patients' needs," Schoen said.

 

Patients in the United States reported the highest rate of disorganized care at doctor's offices -- 33 percent -- followed by Germany with 26 percent, Canada with 24 percent and New Zealand with 21 percent. Patients in Britain and Australia reported 19 percent.

 

U.S. patients also stood out for shouldering more medical expenses than those in the other countries. More than half said they did not take their medicines or see a doctor because of costs.

 

In the United Kingdom, where health care is subsidized by the government, 13 percent of patients polled said they went without care.

 

Overall, "shortfalls were particularly evident for people when discharged from the hospital, and for patients seeing multiple physicians," Schoen said.

 

Between 700 and 750 adults were surveyed by telephone in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and about 1,500 in Britain, Germany and the United States.

 

The poll's error margin was plus or minus 4 percentage points in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, 3 points in Germany and the United States and 2 points in Britain.

[Texsox]

Medical insurance is one of the biggest hindrances to small business. It is almost impossible for small companies to offer decent health care for their employees.

 

As far as mistakes, I believe the profit motive causes some Doctors to over schedule appointments and work too fast.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I had a friend in Texas who was pregnant and got an error in her blood test that said her baby was going to be severly disfigured. Apparently they checked a box that she was dibetic, when she wasn't.

 

not cool.

[mreye]

As far as mistakes, I believe the profit motive causes some Doctors to over schedule appointments and work too fast.

 

Or trying to cover malpractice insurance costs. I think you can partly blame our sue first society.

[Texsox]

Or trying to cover malpractice insurance costs. I think you can partly blame our sue first society.

 

good point.

[RibbieRubarb]

Or trying to cover malpractice insurance costs. I think you can partly blame our sue first society.

 

Sue First/ Bill Frist

 

TomAYto/ TomAHto

Edited November 3, 2005 by RibbieRubarb

[Balta1701]

Or trying to cover malpractice insurance costs. I think you can partly blame our sue first society.

You could, but you'd basically be incorrect.

 

First and foremost...we all know that medical malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years. Before we jump to the conclusion that it's because of those damn trial lawyers, we should probably take a second to see if there's data to verify that. Because if a jump in the cost of malpractice premiums were the fault of the lawyers, it would only logically make sense if there was an increase in either the number of malpractice cases or the cost of paying those out.

 

Guess what...it hasn't. (p.s. the blog linked to links to the actual report, if you want the raw data)

As the chart below shows, malpractice payouts have grown at about the same rate as medical costs in general. In 1992, malpractice payouts amounted to about 0.3% of total healthcare spending and 1.2% of physician and clinical spending. In 2002, the numbers were....0.3% and 1.2%.

 

(And yes, before anyone asks, these figures are for both court judgments and out-of-court settlements. The data comes from mandatory reporting of malpractice payments to the National Practitioner Data Bank, which has been required by federal law since 1990. It includes everything.)

 

The basic numbers are pretty simple: the number of total judgments per physician has gone gradually down, while the total value of payouts has gone gradually up. However, the increase has been small, and matches the overall growth in medical costs.

 

You can argue about whether malpractice costs should grow at the same rate as overall medical costs or not, but it's a tiny argument, not an excuse for crisis mongering. In fact, what's most striking about the numbers is that growth in payouts has been steady and slow. There haven't been any spikes, and certainly no excuses for sudden 100% increases in insurance premiums.

 

Analysts on all sides of this debate agree that reform of the malpractice process would be a good idea. But for the most part, the skyrocketing premiums we've seen over the past couple of years are the result of insurance company incompetence and greed, not actual increases in malpractice payouts. Until everyone figures this out, there's not much chance of making any real progress.

So basically, we have a situation where the amount of money being spent by insurance companies to cover malpractice payouts, litigation, and so forth, has remained roughly constant over a long period of time, with growth matching inflation in the nation. But at the same time, the cost of malpractice insurance has far outstripped the rate of inflation or event he cost of payouts. So, something has to have gone up during that time. Take a bloody good guess where the money is going.

 

The study looks at the 15 biggest malpractice insurance companies and concludes that over the past five years payouts have gone up only slightly while premiums have skyrocketed. As a result:

    *      Net payouts as a percentage of net premiums has declined from 69% to 33%.

    *      Gross payouts as a percentage of gross premiums has declined from 68% to 32%.

    *      Projected future payouts as a percentage of earned premiums has declined from 68% to 51%.

 

So has anything gone up? Of course. Since premiums have risen far faster than both payouts and projected payouts, cash surpluses have increased by a third and stock prices of the public companies have doubled. Life is sweet!

In other words, malpractice premiums are skyrocketing, and the only thing skyrocketing along with them is the money being made by the insurance industry. Lawyers aren't cashing in - the amount of money they're making in lawsuit claims has remained virtually a constant after inflation. The amount of malpractice cases, or suits filed, or suits dismissed has not increased in the last decade. The only thing increasing is insurance company profits.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and there's 1 more thing I need to point out...none of the previous post is designed to suggest that malpractice itself isn't a problem, or that there's not anything we could do about it.

 

The one other key piece of data in this debate is the fact that nationwide, a very small percentage of doctors are actually responsible for an overwhelming majority of the malpractice cases actually filed.

 

Study after study has shown this to be the case. In Pennsylvania, roughly 4% of doctors have been responsible for nearly 50% of the malpractice claims filed, and 10% of the doctors have been responsible for roughly 80% of the malpractice claims filed. Those 10% consist of doctors who have had 2 or more claims filed against them.

 

In Florida, the numbers are slightly different, but the story is the same...7% of that state's doctors have had 3 or more malpractice claims filed against them, and those doctors account for more than 20% of the malpractice claims paid out over the last decade.

 

There is a very simple way to decrease the amount of malpractice in this country - less malpractice. How do we accomplish that? Very simple...the AMA needs to either allow other people to discipline doctors with poor performance records, or they need to discipline them on their own. If we simply forced repeat offenders to pay higher rates, or forced them to seek additional training such that their risk would drop, it would dramatically reduce the number of malpractice cases filed in this countyr, and it would save lives.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Oh, and there's 1 more thing I need to point out...none of the previous post is designed to suggest that malpractice itself isn't a problem, or that there's not anything we could do about it.

 

The one other key piece of data in this debate is the fact that nationwide, a very small percentage of doctors are actually responsible for an overwhelming majority of the malpractice cases actually filed.

 

Study after study has shown this to be the case.  In Pennsylvania, roughly 4% of doctors have been responsible for nearly 50% of the malpractice claims filed, and 10% of the doctors have been responsible for roughly 80% of the malpractice claims filed.  Those 10% consist of doctors who have had 2 or more claims filed against them.

 

In  Florida, the numbers are slightly different, but the story is the same...7% of that state's doctors have had 3 or more malpractice claims filed against them, and those doctors account for more than 20% of the malpractice claims paid out over the last decade.

 

There is a very simple way to decrease the amount of malpractice in this country - less malpractice.  How do we accomplish that?  Very simple...the AMA needs to either allow other people to discipline doctors with poor performance records, or they need to discipline them on their own.  If we simply forced repeat offenders to pay higher rates, or forced them to seek additional training such that their risk would drop, it would dramatically reduce the number of malpractice cases filed in this countyr, and it would save lives.

 

 

Just for the record though, PA and Florida have two of the highest populations of elderly people... so if doctors screw them up, who cares?

 

 

/tasteless joke