Common Good: USA Today: "Heath Courts" Offer Cure
Common Good: USA Today: "Heath Courts" Offer Cure: "USA Today: 'Heath Courts' Offer Cure
Editorial
USA Today, July 4, 2005
An editorial in USA Today endorses the idea of special health courts and makes the case for restoring fairness and reliability to the medical justice system. Showing their support for the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act recently introduced by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT), the piece highlights the crisis in medical tort litigation and argues that health courts would provide an effective alternative to the current system.
From the editorial:
'Physicians often abandon their best judgment if they think a test might protect them in a malpractice lawsuit. [This practice of] defensive medicine can reassure patients, but it isn't benign. It results in unnecessary cesarean sections, painful breast biopsies in women with lumps unlikely to be cancerous, and hospitalization of patients who don't need that level of care.
The practice is pervasive and costs at least $60 billion a year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services -- paid by people's insurance premiums.'
One possible solution is a special health court.
'Opponents say the right to trial by jury is too important to give up. But special courts already handle tax, bankruptcy, maritime and family disputes without juries.
The national malpractice roulette is inefficient and unjust. Health courts could show the way for quicker and fairer compensation to the deserving, and they might reduce the incentive for doctors to engage in defensive medicine that puts patients at risk.
Starting the experiment is the right medicine for an ailing system.'
Read entire editorial.
Editorial
USA Today, July 4, 2005
An editorial in USA Today endorses the idea of special health courts and makes the case for restoring fairness and reliability to the medical justice system. Showing their support for the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act recently introduced by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT), the piece highlights the crisis in medical tort litigation and argues that health courts would provide an effective alternative to the current system.
From the editorial:
'Physicians often abandon their best judgment if they think a test might protect them in a malpractice lawsuit. [This practice of] defensive medicine can reassure patients, but it isn't benign. It results in unnecessary cesarean sections, painful breast biopsies in women with lumps unlikely to be cancerous, and hospitalization of patients who don't need that level of care.
The practice is pervasive and costs at least $60 billion a year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services -- paid by people's insurance premiums.'
One possible solution is a special health court.
'Opponents say the right to trial by jury is too important to give up. But special courts already handle tax, bankruptcy, maritime and family disputes without juries.
The national malpractice roulette is inefficient and unjust. Health courts could show the way for quicker and fairer compensation to the deserving, and they might reduce the incentive for doctors to engage in defensive medicine that puts patients at risk.
Starting the experiment is the right medicine for an ailing system.'
Read entire editorial.
posted by stevo at 7/06/2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home