|
|
|
News & Commentary
MedWatch is a collection of recent news and commentary illustrating how legal fear is
eroding the quality and availability of health care in America.
CG in the News is your source for recent news about Common Good's efforts to create a reliable
system of medical justice that will make health care safer and more accessible,
rapidly compensate injured patients, and effectively weed out bad physicians.
The most recent articles from each section appear below. MedWatch Weak Oversight Lets Bad Hospitals Stay Open
Alex Berenson, New York Times, December 8, 2008
In late 2006, a New York State commission recommended that University Hospital be scaled back and merged with another hospital due to its substandard care. Despite these facts, University Hospital remains open. The state’s inability to follow through on that plan for University demonstrates how hard it can be to close or shrink hospitals, even when there is evidence they are providing costly and below-average care. Unlike some other nations, including France, the United States has no federal agency charged with hospital oversight. Any effort to maintain national standards is left largely to Medicare and the Joint Commission, a nonprofit group. University Hospital was not closed and did not suffer financial penalties because of its ties to the community. The hospital’s unions paid for television ads, lobbied lawmakers, and filed a lawsuit to overturn the recommendations. Dr. Berwick, the president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a national nonprofit group trying to reduce hospital mistakes stressed that “we need to act with more speed and diligence to stop practice where it’s actively harmful…let the needs of patients come first, not the needs of a hospital.” » article
Malpractice Screening Debated
Annmarie Timmins, Concord Monitor, December 7, 2008
Doctors and attorneys in New Hampshire continue to disagree over the effectiveness of the state’s medical malpractice screening process. In 2005, New Hampshire joined 16 other states when it adopted medical malpractice screening panels. The panels -- which are chaired by a retired judge and include a doctor and attorney -- screen every medical malpractice case that's filed in court. After the panel hears the facts of the case, the three members vote in favor of the plaintiff or the doctor. Doctors and their lawyers claim the screenings not only save money and time by encouraging lawsuits to settle, but also keep meritless claims from juries. Attorneys representing injured patients, however, complain that just the opposite is happening. The intent of the law was to contain the climbing cost of medical malpractice insurance by containing the legal expenses of fighting lawsuits. The law requires the panels to convene within 6 months of filing, yet lawyers are treating the proceedings no differently than a jury trial and taking 15 months to ready the panels. Anecdotal evidence seems to show that the panels can be cheaper and achieve faster resolutions than full jury trials. State officials tracking the impact of the screening process say they need more time and information to determine its efficacy. » article
British Balance Gain against the Cost of the Latest Drugs
Gardiner Harris, New York Times, December 3, 2008
How much is life worth saving? The British government created the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, NICE, a decade ago to ensure that every pound spent buys as many years of good-quality life as possible. Many argue, however, that the institute is frequently rejecting expensive treatments and preventing patients from accessing the best care. With U.S. medical costs expected to reach 25 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product in 2025 from 16 percent, some wonder if NICE’s cost saving methods should be applied in America. The institute, which includes 270 doctors, economists and pharmacists, researches various medical techniques and determines which ones are the most effective and cost efficient. Their research creates guidelines and consistency, but denying costly treatment also raises moral questions regarding patient care. » article
CG in the news Adjudicating Severe Birth Injury Claims in Florida and Virginia
The Experience of a Landmark Experiment in Personal Injury Compensation
Gil Siegal, Michelle Mello and David Studdert, American Journal of Law & Medicine, February 1, 2009
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, working in coordination with Common Good and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, explore the birth-injury compensation programs in Florida and Virginia as models for administrative compensation in medical liability.
No Place to Be Born
Paul Barringer and Richard Berkowitz, New York Sun, August 25, 2008
In an op-ed for the New York Sun, Common Good General Counsel Paul Barringer and Columbia University Medical Center Professor Dr. Richard Berkowitz report on the Ob-Gyn crisis in New York.
Administrative Compensation of Medical Injuries: A Hardy Perennial Blooms Again
Paul Barringer, David Studdert, Allen Kachalia, and Michelle Mello, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, August 1, 2008
Common Good's General Counsel, Paul Barringer, discusses the history of administrative compensation in the U.S.
| |
