What The Medical Industry Does Not Want You To Know
Every other day, it seems, we hear about another
medical horror story. A Tampa, Florida, man has the wrong leg amputated.
A 4-year-old girl from New York City bleeds to death after having her tonsils
removed. An 8-year-old boy from Denver, Colorado, dies after his anesthesiologist
falls asleep during surgery.
Yet at the same time, Americans are justifiably
concerned about access to and quality of care. We read about big insurance
companies and HMOs clamping down on which health care providers we can and
cannot see -- and when we can see them. We read about assembly-line medicine
and for-profit health care companies that make money when they deny Americans
access to health care.
Given our anxiety over the quality of care, the
last thing we ought to do is gut the laws that protect us and make sure
the medical industry does not get away with bad medicine. This fact sheet
documents the medical industry's "dirty secret" and why the industry
wants to keep a lid on the malpractice epidemic in America.
Restricting injured patients' rights will do
nothing to rein in runaway health care costs because medical malpractice
premiums amount to less than 1 percent of those costs, according to a 1992
U.S. Congressional Budget Office report.
The medical industry's inability to contain the
malpractice epidemic adds tremendously to the nation's health care bill.
Troyen A. Brennan, one of the authors of the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice
Study, testified before Congress in 1994 that "medical injuries [caused
by providers] are associated with over $60 billion in costs, all of which
the medical care system and other social welfare benefit plans now silently
absorb."
Medical malpractice is all too common in America.
The Harvard Medical Practice Study found that malpractice in one year in
New York contributed to the deaths of nearly 7,000 people -- an average
of 19 deaths per day -- and injured about 27,000 more.
According to extrapolations from the Harvard
study, more than 95,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries nationwide
were due in part to negligent medical care in one year alone.
However, the Harvard researchers found that only
one in eight incidents of medical malpractice ever resulted in a legal
claim by an injured patient. Not surprisingly, the researchers concluded
that "we do not now have a problem of too many claims; if anything,
there are too few."
Studies by the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC) confirm that malpractice cases are rare. About 5 percent of all
civil cases in state courts in 1992 were related to personal injury (or
"torts"), NCSC found. Of all torts, only 7 percent involved any
type of professional malpractice, including medical negligence, it reported.
Also, an American Medical Association publication stated in 1992 that the
malpractice claims rate has dropped at an average annual rate of 8.9 percent
since 1985.
Wrong drug prescriptions are a major cause of
medical injury, according to a July 1995 Journal of the American Medical
Association article. It reported that many adverse drug events are
preventable, and that for every such event, there are almost three "potential"
adverse drug events where either an incorrect drug is given but no reaction
occurs or the drug error is intercepted before the order is carried out.
Despite this alarming incidence of malpractice
only about 2,000 doctors (or one-third of 1 percent of all doctors in the
United States) are disciplined each year by state medical boards, according
to the Public Citizen Health Research Group. Most physicians who are disciplined
are sanctioned for transgressions other than negligence, such as substance
abuse or fraud.
The medical industry clearly has been incapable
of policing its own and weeding out dangerous providers. Dr. Arnold S.
Relman, editor-in-chief emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine,
has observed that 5 percent of all physicians are incapable of practicing
medicine because they are either "alcoholics, drug addicts, senile,
criminals or simply incompetent."
The medical industry's response to negligent
care and incompetent providers has been to circle the wagons, and blame
so-called "defensive medicine" (the ordering of tests out of
liability concerns) and deflect attention from the unethical practice of
physician self-referral (ordering tests at facilities in which the provider
has a financial interest).
According to a July 1994 report by Congress's
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), physicians continue to "substantially
overestimate their risk of being sued." Only a small percentage of
diagnostic procedures -- "certainly less than 8 percent" -- is
likely to be caused by a concern about malpractice liability, according
to OTA.
Health care providers often have a financial
incentive to run up costs, according to an October 1991 study by the Consumer
Federation of America (CFA). Physicians with financial interests in labs
order up to 96 percent more tests than those without such interests. Prices
at these labs are up to 38 percent higher than at independent, non- physician-owned
labs, states CFA.
Nor will restricting injured patients' rights
reduce health care providers' insurance premiums. Insurers have stated
that they have no intention of reducing premiums and in states that have
changed their liability laws, premiums have not been cut. In fact, medical
malpractice is the most profitable line of insurance written nationwide.
Losses paid by insurers in 1991 for medical negligence amounted to only
31 cents out of every $100 of health care spending, according to insurance
industry monitor A.M. Best.
Used with permission from
The Association of Trial
Lawyers of America. All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER
This information has been prepared only for general purposes
and is not legal advice. Presentation of this information is
not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Do
not act upon this information without seeking professional
counsel.
|