Cherry Hill, New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Ensuring Patient Safety Would Cost Fewer Lives AND Less Money

Mike Ferrara — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:12:56 GMT

Despite laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania requiring hospitals to report major medical errors, unanticipated complications, and near misses to state agencies for the purpose of reducing medical mistakes, experts say that hospitals in both states are neglecting to report these kinds of incidents.

In 2007, major medical errors in Pennsylvania included accidentally leaving surgical equipment inside two separate patients at Fox Chase Cancer Center. At Abington Memorial Hospital in 2005, a woman recovering from hip surgery developed open bed sores after being left lying on a bedpan for several hours. In a total violation of state law, none of these incidents was reported by the hospitals responsible.

When serious medical errors don’t lead to a patient’s death, they require additional health care spending—often tens of thousands of dollars per patient—to correct.

"Anybody that is supposed to report close calls and has zero reports is clueless," said James Bagian, head of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for Patient Safety. "Management is asleep at the switch and just waiting until they kill someone." Josh Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer

Since 2003, though the health department has cited four hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania for failing to report serious medical errors, none of these hospitals has been fined.

In the current climate of sloppy enforcement, medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the only ways to protect patients against medical errors. They are also the only way to ensure that hospitals and doctors are held responsible if and when they do cause serious patient harm.

Rather than threaten patient safety and take away the patient’s right to compensation by limiting malpractice claims, health care reform needs to focus on ways to make patients safer. Insisting on better monitoring of hospital errors would be an excellent start.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Medical Malpractice Reform: A Doctor’s Perspective

Camryn Hansen — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:58:59 GMT

If you’re getting mad about the mainstream media’s perpetual refusal to fact-check, telling you that So-and-So says X while another So-and-So says Y but refusing to tell you whether X or Y is in fact true, you will appreciate the recent Salon.com article by Rahul K. Parikh, M.D.—“I'm a doctor. So sue me. No, really.”

In this article, Dr. Parikh thoughtfully and rigorously examines the evidence that tort reformers have been touting for years as reasons why states should limit patient compensation for medical injuries. He finds that:

· We do not have an epidemic of malpractice suits in this country, and the numbers are not growing. Studies show that between 1996 and 2006, the number of suits has actually declined eight percent.

· Capping medical malpractice claims would not translate to significantly lower health care costs. Currently, malpractice costs amount to two percent of our $2 trillion total.

· Contrary to tort reformers’ claims, the cost to the system of “defensive medicine” is marginal at best.

· Although tort reformers claim that “junk lawsuits” account for the majority of malpractice claims and clog up the legal system, and have cherry picked misleading study statistics to back up their arguments, a comprehensive Harvard study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a full 2/3 of malpractice cases involve errors made by doctors. Of that 2/3, 73% resulted in payments to plaintiffs. Of the suits that did not involve an actual doctor error, 72% did not result in payments. As Parikh says, “Those conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients.”

· The cost of malpractice insurance does not drive doctors out of business in rural areas. Rural areas have always had a shortage of doctors relative to highly populated areas, and “with or without tort reform, access to care is likely to stay tight outside of big cities.”

The real culprit for high costs, according to Parikh, are the malpractice insurance companies, who are simply adhering to the tradition of making up for declining investments by increasing their premiums:

Public Citizen…notes "that a historical pattern has been established that insurance rates rise also based on the investment market...Earlier 'crises' (in 1975-6 and 1985-6) similar to today's 'crisis' were due to declining investment fortunes and failed pricing practices of the insurance industry rather than an increase in medical malpractice filings and awards. Then, as now, the insurance industry covered its losses by raising rates dramatically, then blamed the lawyers of innocent patients rightfully seeking compensation for negligence-related injuries." -Salon.com

Most importantly, as Parikh points out, no amount of malpractice reform will help doctors save the lives of more patients. Any humanitarian discussion of health care reform will need to pay a lot more attention to the issue of patient safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Health Care Reform - Not Enough Attention to Medical Error Prevention

Mike Ferrara — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:38:27 GMT

According to a report just released by the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services, in 2007, hospital doctors, nurses and other medical workers committed nearly 9,400 "serious medical errors'' that threatened patient health by leading to infections, blood clots, and other unnecessary complications.

The report is the first in the state to compare hospitals with one another, showing exactly where the errors are occurring. Together, New Jersey’s hospitals fared worse than the national average on numbers of post-surgical infections and frequency of wounds re-opening. In other areas, such as surgical equipment being left inside patients after surgery or the wrong blood type being given, New Jersey fared better than other states.

AARP'S Kelmar said matching the national rate in mistakes is not good enough. She noted there were 63 incidents statewide of a foreign object left in the body after surgery -- a rate that is about the national norm.

"The expected rate of occurrence for this incident is zero,'' Kelmar said.

"Disconcerting numbers of preventable medical errors are occurring in our health facilities. Now consumers will know these results,'' said Patricia Kelmar, associate state director for advocacy for AARP-New Jersey, which pushed for the tougher reporting requirements. "Equally important, every hospital can see their own levels of mistakes compared to others, which we hope will encourage them to make the changes necessary to improve patient safety throughout the state." -The StarLedger

While state hospital “report cards” are a great step on the road to reducing medical errors, there is still not enough focus on preventable medical errors in the national health care legislation. All the talk of medical malpractice reform and tort reform has taken attention away from the real issue, which is that more than 100,000 patients die every year from preventable medical errors. Tort reform will do nothing to prevent this, and will only make it more difficult for patients who are needlessly harmed to get the compensation they deserve.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Malpractice Reform will Save the Country Almost Zero, Study Finds

Mike Ferrara — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:12:57 GMT

Advocates of medical malpractice reform have been claiming that reform would save the federal government (and taxpayers) between $100 billion and $200 billion a year. These figures have stood at the forefront of the debate on malpractice reform, and have come to be taken for granted as true. Purportedly, saving the country a great deal of money has been one of the tort reformers’ key objectives.

So what do the tort reformers say when they discover that this week, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, contrary to previous claims, malpractice reform is highly unlikely to have a significant impact on government health care spending? That in fact, caps on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages will only lower spending by three tenths of one percent?

Unbelievably, they say Wow, great. That’s really a lot. A whole three tenths of one percent! That’s $11 billion!

Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, called the analysis "momentous." "Today's CBO analysis should underscore what two-thirds of voters have said: Congress should include meaningful medical liability reform in the healthcare reform bill," she said. –LA Times

Malpractice reformers need to stop spinning the numbers pretending to fight for the noble taxpayer, and be honest about their true motives for reform: they want less corporate accountability and more corporate control over the lives of individual Americans. They want corporations like insurance companies and drug manufacturers to reap endless profits while patients who are truly injured during treatment have no legal recourse. Why do they want this? Because corporations fund their political careers.

Malpractice reform will not save the country a significant amount of money, and will only contribute to the number of people who are killed every year by preventable errors.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Doctor Mistakes – How much do Electronic Systems Help?

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:05:57 GMT

President Obama has made electronic medical records central to US health care reform, promising $1.2 billion of assistance to doctors and hospitals in switching from paper to electronic records.

(Can you imagine any other major business succeeding today without an electronic record-keeping system? It's really, really ridiculous that the e-switch hasn't happened yet in most of this country's hospitals and doctors' offices.)

One major reason to switch to electronic records is to help doctors keep track of test results in an effort to avoid medical errors. But study results released this week show that doctors sometimes ignore even electronic warnings concerning abnormal test results. Doctors in the study failed to follow up on almost eight percent of the e-alerts they received about an abnormal x-ray, mammogram, CT scan, MRI, and other imaging tests, even when the results demanded immediate medical attention. The conditions of nearly all of the patients whose results were ignored ended up getting worse as a result.

"Just the fact that you can use technology to deliver a piece of information from the radiologist to a doctor doesn't mean it will be taken care of," said Dr. Hardeep Singh of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, whose study appears in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

"The electronic health record system is a huge improvement from previous paper-based systems, but it is not perfect," Singh said in a telephone interview. -kcrg

Electronic systems will allow doctors to share patients' medical records, communicate information about proven treatments, and send test results reminders. Many Veterans Affairs medical centers (one of which was the subject of the study) have been using the systems for nearly a decade.

If neglecting to follow up on eight percent of abnormal test results is a "huge improvement" over the status quo, just how bad is the status quo?

If you have had an experience with an ignored abnormal test result or any other medical mistake, we want to hear the truth from you! Please post your story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Tort Reform – Be Suspicious of the Chamber of Commerce’s Enthusiasm

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:25:40 GMT

The US Chamber of Commerce, which describes itself as “the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region,” but which actually represents the interests of rich oil companies, rich pharmaceutical companies, automakers, and other (rich) polluting industries, spent $57.9 million in 2008 alone on lobbying in Washington—by far the most of any organization.

We know lobbying in general is creepy, but why should we worry about US Chamber lobbying in particular? For one thing, the Chamber (along with its pet organization the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR)) is perpetually advocating for tort reform—specifically the kind that erodes away consumer rights by designing mega-business-friendly laws that undermine the accountability of companies who profit enormously from the dangerous and even deadly products they market to Americans. It regularly fights for federal preemption of state claims, and has expressed opposition to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which it calls “a device against business.” In the 2008 elections, the Chamber paid millions of dollars for aggressive ads attacking Democratic Congressional candidates (including Minnesota's DFL Senate candidate Al Franken), and supported such Republican candidates as John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Roger Wicker, Saxby Chambliss and Elizabeth Dole.

Now that the possibility of medical malpractice tort reform is on the table, the Institute for Legal Reform “is launching a new advertising blitz to pressure Congress to include more comprehensive and sweeping tort reform provisions in the health care bill, said institute spokesman Mark Szymanski.”

When the Chamber of Commerce vehemently, aggressively supports something, we can all assume that big business will win out over the little guy if the Chamber gets what it wants. Enacting malpractice reform would mean a loss of patients’ rights to safe treatment in favor of pharmaceutical and medical device company profits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

“Defensive Medicine” Makes Dollars, but No Sense.

Mike Ferrara — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:22:00 GMT

The logic of all the “defensive medicine” talk doesn’t add up. Doctors all around the country insist that they often perform unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid malpractice suits, but when asked to provide a specific example of an unnecessary test or procedure they performed, they can’t give one. Performing medically unnecessary tests and/or procedures would, of course, constitute malpractice, so they won’t admit to a single case of it. You can’t have it both ways: either you’re performing unnecessary procedures or you’re not.

It’s also hard to believe that every doctor who admits to practicing defensive medicine is angry about all the extra money he or she is making because of it. Every test and procedure ordered, whether “necessary” or not, means a collected doctor fee.

As far as tort reform goes, it’s important to note that in Texas, which boasts the country’s strictest malpractice restrictions, malpractice premiums and lawsuits have gone way down. Yet, the cost of health care in Texas is the highest in the country, chiefly because doctors (according to experts in the state) are performing far more services than their patients actually need. Everyone profits but the patient.

While tort reform limits a patient’s right to a fair trial and right to compensation for injuries caused by negligent doctors, it doesn’t put an end to expensive medicine.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Texas Tort Reform is STILL NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform

Mike Ferrara — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:17:57 GMT

I’m sure that everyone who was listening noticed the section in Barack Obama’s address to Congress tonight where he talked about trying out some more caps on medical malpractice suits. He mentioned the recent tort reforms in Texas as a potentially viable example of successful reform that could be tried in other states in an attempt to save on health care costs.

I’d like to repeat something I mentioned here two days ago: despite the stringent medical malpractice law Texas passed several years ago to cap awards for pain and suffering at $250,000, bringing the number of malpractice suits as well as the threat of malpractice down dramatically, Texas is now home to one of the most expensive health care systems in the country. Three of the top ten most expensive cities to receive health care in are Texas cities.

Propaganda issued in 2003 by tort reformers in Texas to limit malpractice suits claimed that Texas had a dangerous shortage of doctors due to skyrocketing malpractice premiums caused by the threat of lawsuits, and that tort reform would bring more doctors to Texas. At the time, the truth was that only the poorer, more rural counties in Texas lacked adequate doctors; since tort reform, this is still the case. While Texas has attracted more doctors, it has only been to wealthy counties with well-equipped, well-paying hospitals; the situation in rural counties remains unchanged.

[In 2003, a] flier printed by the TMA in English and Spanish and posted in waiting rooms across the state told patients that “152 counties in Texas now have no obstetrician. Wide swaths of Texas have no neurosurgeon or orthopedic surgeon. ... The primary culprit for this crisis is an explosion in awards for non-economic (pain and suffering) damages in liability lawsuits.”

As of September 2007, the number of counties without obstetricians is unchanged—152 counties still have none, according to the Observer’s examination of county-by-county data at the state Medical Board.

Nearly half of Texas counties—124, or 49 percent—have no obstetrician, neurosurgeon, or orthopedic surgeon. Those specialists aside, 21 Texas counties have no physician of any kind. That’s one county worse than before Proposition 12 passed, when 20 counties had no doctor. -The Texas Observer

Caps on patient awards will not lower health care costs, and will not attract more good doctors to the areas around the country that really need them. All it will do is deny compensation to people who’ve suffered due to a doctor’s negligence. Let’s not create more Texases as part of national health reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Texas Tort Reform is NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:24:15 GMT

Tort reformers like to talk a lot about how the threat of malpractice suits raises health care costs by forcing doctors to practice “defensive medicine”—the ordering of unnecessary tests, procedures, and prescriptions in an attempt to protect themselves against a possible negligence lawsuit.

In a 2008 AMA survey, they remind us, a majority of the doctors who responded admitted to practicing defensive medicine—a number that translates, the AMA calculated, to $1.4 billion more spent annually on health care. If our doctors weren’t threatened into doing this, we’d all save loads of money and our national health crisis would be over.

Are the tort reformers right? Well, let’s look at Texas. Several years ago, the state passed a stringent medical malpractice law that capped awards for pain and suffering at $250,000, and brought the number of malpractice lawsuits down dramatically.

So the cost of health care in Texas must also be down, you suppose, since doctors don’t face the same malpractice threats as the rest of the country. Eh, No. In fact, Texas is home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country to receive health care: McAllen, Harlingen and Corpus Christi. In each of these cities, every Medicare patient is costing the country more than $10,000 a year (a couple thousand more than the national average).

So if defensive medicine against the threat of malpractice suits isn’t driving up costs, what is?

Harvard Medical School surgeon Atul Gawande got a candid answer to this question from a general surgeon in McAllen, Texas:

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are [BS]. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ” –Atul Gawande, The NewYorker

While tort reform like Texas' won't improve the cost of our health care, changing our charge-per-service structure just might.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

New Jersey Hospitals Must Now Publicly Report Serious Medical Errors

Camryn Hansen — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:35:49 GMT

Governor Jon Corzine signed a new law earlier this week that will require New Jersey hospitals to publicly report on their performance in areas of patient safety, including serious medical errors.

Because of this law, patients will no longer be required to pay for any medical errors committed during their treatment—something that patients in many states around the country are still required to do.

Annual reports from the Department of Health and Senior Services will now include patient-safety statistics, including numbers of surgeries done on the wrong body part; surgical objects accidently left inside patients’ bodies; and injuries from preventable post-surgery falls. Though this kind of data was already being collected internally, it will now be made public.

Armed with this kind of patient safety information, patients will now have more control over their health care options, and be able to make more informed decisions about the care they receive.

"Patients and families have a right to know which hospitals have the higher and lowest error rates so they can compare and make responsible health care choices," said Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, D-Washington Township.

Nationwide, excess charges due to preventable medical errors exceed $9 billion a year, observed Sy Larson, president of AARP New Jersey, which supports the new law.

"We know that public reporting of hospital performance improves quality," said Health and Senior Services Commissioner Heather Howard. Similar reporting standards have produced "dramatic decreases in cardiac surgery deaths," she said. -NJ Courier-Post

More reporting on preventable medical errors will translate to better health care and lower health care costs. The rest of the country could benefit from following New Jersey’s example and enacting mandatory error-reporting legislation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen