Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

It's actually a good signaling subject.

Malpractice insurance itself is not a large expense for most doctors (OB/GYN and neurosurgeons being the most serious exceptions).

In my conversations with doctors, they have admitted to me that defensive medicine is primarily practiced not to avoid money costs, but because doctors don't like being sued. It's a reputational and personal embarrassment.

As a practical matter, if true, that suggests that tort reform which handles suits quietly and discreetly, with a minimum of aspersions cast upon the doctor and a minimum amount of time required from the doctor to defend himself, would be far more effective at reducing the cost of defensive medicine than tort reform that reduces malpractice awards, even if they reduce them very substantially.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

@ Bill: "There may be differences in outcomes, but not on a risk adjusted basis. You see, if it is really risky, and where you have a systemic risk, the docs do it in the hospital."

Not in our community. The figures *are* risk adjusted. Our docs purposely take the risky cases to our hospital because it has the best post-op care and the best chance of patient survival. In reality, the results have caused one of the local non-profits to shut down their heart program, and to buy a percentage of our facility. It is *the hospital*.

True enough about the Medicare compensation when we started, but there have been *huge* cutbacks, and our margin in quite small. It's nor nearly as good an investment as say my wife's Merle Norman cosmetic franchise.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts