In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:53:44 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

I saw a chart of OB/GYN premiums where the cost in Colorado and
Wisconsin is $20,000 and in NY and Florida $120,000 for the same
coverage. But in Dade county the premium is +$200,000.
So just blaming lawyers won't do as an analysis, though I suspect Dade
county is a lawyer heaven and that accounts for the high premiums there

I suppose the real answer would be to get a comprehensive list of what
doctors pay for various specialties across the country. I will see if
my ex can come up with that. I bet she already knows someone who has
it.
That still ignores the defensive medicine costs.

You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."
Can you describe such a test?
It seems to me that all testing should be done to pinpoint or eliminate
a cause of an ailment, either current or predicted.
It would be a waste of time to bother your ex for premium rates.
They could change tomorrow.
I found this, which is a good unbiased look at malpractice insurance.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf

The complexities are worse than I thought.
And reliable data also less than I imagined.
My view is that the federal government with their regulatory authority
is the only entity capable of bringing the pieces together to make sense
of it and improve it. Similar to the FDIC insurance authority, but this
is more complex due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits.
This would greatly benefit physicians in some states, but perhaps cost
physicians in other states more because premiums would be federally
equalized.
The goal is taking the malpractice premium worry off the backs of good
physicians, and reducing costs, including tort reform to penalize
frivolous lawsuit filers.
Of course that federalizing will ruffle many "free market" and states
rights feathers.
Oddly, those are the same states rightists want to federally impose
payment caps across all states.
But if you prefer the free market, live with the current "system."
As always, it will charged with political nonsense.
I hear it from my customers all the time, when they attempt to engage me
in such political talk. I reply by addressing the actual issues, and
asking a few questions about policy.
The discussion invariably ends there, and we are back to shoes.
But as long as the customer walks away with a well fitting pair of
shoes, I'm happy with the outcome.
I'm pretty single-minded about that.

Peter

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:22:20 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."

An example of defensive medicine is when the doctor gives someone an
MRI when there is really nothing in their diagnosis that justifies an
MRI but the doctor is afraid if anything ever did go south he would
have to defend that decision.
I had that happen to me.


Why didn't you refuse? I've refused certain procedures. It's no big deal.
The patient is the one who's in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:21:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:22:20 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."

An example of defensive medicine is when the doctor gives someone an
MRI when there is really nothing in their diagnosis that justifies an
MRI but the doctor is afraid if anything ever did go south he would
have to defend that decision.
I had that happen to me.


Why didn't you refuse? I've refused certain procedures. It's no big deal.
The patient is the one who's in charge.


The short answer, My wife's insurance was supposed to cover it.
It turns out, about half of it.
That is part of the problem with insurance. As long as something is
covered, people will do it, whether they need to or not.


You're still under no obligation to have a procedure you don't agree with.
Just because a doctor says it doesn't make it God's law.

Example: I jammed my finger a couple years ago. I went to the urgent care
because it swelled up like crazy and turned red. The PA ordered an X-ray and
put me on anti-biotics for the obvious infection. I was told to make an
appointment in a week with my regular doc just to be sure. It was quite a
bit better, but I went in anyway, since it was still a little swollen and
it's my right hand. My doc said it was possible that I had a hairline
fracture and wanted to do another X-ray, since his equipment was digital and
he'd be able to see it. I asked what the treatment would be if it was broken
vs. just tendon bruising. No difference. Thus, I said, no X-ray.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:22:20 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."

An example of defensive medicine is when the doctor gives someone an
MRI when there is really nothing in their diagnosis that justifies an
MRI but the doctor is afraid if anything ever did go south he would
have to defend that decision.
I had that happen to me.

"Really nothing in their diagnosis" would get an objection from your
doctor. And I'm sure he gave you his reasoning for the MRI.
What you have said doesn't make sense.
If you had an ailment for which an MRI did not make sense, an honest
doctor would not have it done.
If he ordered a Pap smear for you, you would have a case.
Not saying you are playing doctor here. Just standard politics.
Personally, I usually follow my doctor's advice, though not always.
Many doctors think there is a drug to cure everything.
But I have had a "useless" MRI. Didn't mean it was a test not indicated
by my ailment, and by eliminating internal causes we found out the real
cause.
By the way, though doctoring is part art, there are plenty of diagnostic
road maps used to determine what tests should be performed.
That is why "unnecessary tests" would be easy to identify - if they
existed.
Of course there are USPSTF guidelines for testing.
Remember the recent furor over that agency not recommending mammograms
for women under 40?
Too much cost and only so many lives saved. Right.
Remember "Nothing should come between doctor and patient?"
Remember "Death panels?"
A good doctor is not stingy with testing.
If I want "take an aspirin, and get some sleep" advice, I need not see a
doctor for that.

Peter