Bentonville Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Regulating the Health Care Market

Sach Oliver — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:55:00 GMT

Tort reform is a touchy subject. Many people argue that tort lawyers who take on medical malpractice claims are just trying to ruin doctors and get rich quick, all while driving up healthcare costs for others. However, looking at actual research, rather than repeating tired dogmas reveals the truth behind this subject.

The actual cost of medical malpractice claims equates to less that 2% of overall healthcare costs.[1] This percentage of spending is arguably low when one considers the benefits provided by this private sector regulation of doctors. In fact, the number of doctors who have ever been responsible for malpractice payments is very low. To be precise, 82% of doctors have never had a malpractice payment.[2] This proves that malpractice claims are much less common than many people think. Further, since 1991, 6% of doctors have been responsible for 58% of malpractice payments.[3]

With these numbers in mind, it is evident that many doctors will go through their entire career and will never be responsible for a malpractice payment. Does this prove that the healthcare market should be subject to less liability? I think that this would lead one to the opposite conclusion. Doctors know that they are subject to liability, and this gives them an incentive to perform adequately. Consumers of healthcare deserve to know which doctors are performing adequately, and those who are injured by inadequate performance deserve to be compensated.

The argument is often heard that those who are compensated force others into higher healthcare costs because doctors are then forced to pay higher premiums, and pass this cost on to the consumer. However, there is little correlation between malpractice premiums and malpractice payouts.[4] Rather, doctors’ premium increases can be attributed to declining interest rates and investments.[5] These are some important considerations for us during these times. Assumptions should not guide us. We should look at the facts of this subject ourselves, and encourage others to do the same.

Our firm believes the overwhelming majority of doctors are wonderful people and fantastic physicians. It is the minority of doctors who are negligent and should be held accountable for their actions.

[1] “Malpractice a Tiny Percentage of Health Care Costs,” available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/8686.htm, (accessed September 7, 2009).

[2] “By the Numbers- Few Doctors Responsible for Malpractice Payments,” available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/8692.htm, (accessed September 7, 2009).

[3] Id.

[4] “No Correlation Between Malpractice Payouts and Insurance Premiums,” available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/8689.htm, (accessed September 7, 2009).

[5] Id.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sach Oliver

Telemedicine: Bringing Experts to Rural Hospitals

Ryan Scott — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:57:59 GMT

Shop, email, read the news, and NOW... get medical attention! That's right, many hospitals are employing the internet to maximize the resources of specialist through telemedicine. According to the American Telemedicine Association, using monitoring devices and miniature cameras connected to the internet, many of the sickest patients are getting specialized attention from doctors hundreds and thousands of miles away.

According to the association, many hospitals, especially in rural areas, have turned to technology to improve the quality of healthcare to their patients. Just recently, a hospital in Northwest Arkansas installed the telemedicine technology in its Intensive Care Unit. The hospital links up with its parent company and sister facility in a large urban city to maximize the use of its intensivits. Intensivists are doctors specially trained to treat the most critically ill patients. With the use of this technology, intensivists in St. Louis can monitor the real-time vitals of a patient in rural Arkansas and use the cameras to zoom in close enough to count the patient's eyelashes.

The hospital claims this helps "bridge the specialty gap" that exists because smaller community hospitals cannot afford to staff such a focused specialty. The hospital says it’s like getting two doctors, one on site, the specialist on-line.

This could be great news for those of us who live in smaller communities. However, no technology will replace the need for an actual caretaker at the patient's side (even if only for the patient’s own emotional and mental well-being). Whether hospitals use this technology as a much needed supplement for stretched-to-the-max healthcare providers and not as a method to replace the human face of medicine remains to be seen.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ryan Scott

Pay First” Hospital Care

Sach Oliver — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:13:56 GMT

PAY FIRST” HOSPITAL CARE

A hospital in Wynne plans to require some of its patients who are seeking non emergency care to pay upfront for their care. This seems to be a growing trend in small nonprofit facilities. They plan to start within the coming months.

A Wall Street Journal article last year said it is unknown how many hospitals are requiring upfront payment such as this. In 2006, the Journal reported, about 14% of nonprofit hospitals responding to a voluntary survey by the IRS said they require upfront payments or payment arrangements before admitting patients.

Because of bad debt, patients facing higher deductibles and co-insurance than in the past, these are the reasons for the change. Critics say that this is only going to get worse as the economy remains in a downslide.

As a consumer in this economy, I would have to agree with the critics because people are losing their homes and jobs. They are having problems meeting their utilities, car payments, and credit cards. It seems to consumers that medical bills are quite a distance behind the cost of having the necessities of life.

This post written by: Leona Crowe, Legal Assistant to Sach Oliver

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sach Oliver

Disclosure of Medical Mistakes: Better for All Involved

Ryan Scott — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:05:41 GMT

Medical ethicists, hospitals, and courts all agree that trust is essential for a working healthcare industry. Part of that trust includes physicians putting patients first and fully informing them of what they did to their body. This includes informing a patient when a doctor has made a mistake.

Despite all the rhetoric, a recent survey of patients who suffered serious medical errors indicates that as little as 30% of the health care professionals responsible for the mistake that caused the patient's injury admitted that an error occurred. For years, doctors were trained to use caution when deciding to disclose medical errors. Those who subscribed to this belief argued that disclosure would only serve to scare patients, undermine trust, and increase the prevalence of medical negligence lawsuits. However, the opposite is actually true.

Recent studies show that disclosure of medical mistakes actually increases trust and eliminates the foremost reason for malpractice lawsuits. One major survey of medical negligence plaintiffs noted that many filed suit primarily because they believed their physician failed to be completely honest with them or intentionally mislead them. Conversely, recent studies show that healthcare systems with full-disclosure policies either saw no change in malpractice claims or saw a decrease in the number of claims, financial award amounts, and the costs of time and lawyers. See Kraman & Hamm Risk Management: Extreme Honesty May be the Best Policy, 131 Annals of Internal Medicine, 963 (1999).

Full disclosure is good medical practice that fosters confidence in patients, aids in recovery, and protects the dignity and rights of healthcare consumers. This is an idea whose time has come. Now backed by empirical proof, there is no reasonable excuse for healthcare professionals to do the right thing and admit their mistakes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ryan Scott

To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System: Medical Negligence Occurs but Why?

Sach Oliver — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:46:35 GMT

To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System: Medical Negligence Occurs but Why?

The Institute of Medicine found a decade ago that as many as 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, costing the nation an estimated $29 billion. The literature where this data is found is titled, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The authors note medical errors kill more people than motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, guns, AIDS, and many other harms. Matter of fact, they say medical errors are the nations 6^th leading cause of death.

The literature’s goal is to educate and set out plans to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety through the design of safer health systems. To Err is Human asserts that the problem is not bad people in health care – it is that good people are working in bad systems that need to be safer.

I agree with this literature in that most of the time it is not bad people causing harm, it is usually bad systems. Patient safety in America’s health care system should be a priority and “bad systems” should be held accountable for their actions that cause harm. Medical Negligence lawsuits are sometimes the only avenue harmed patients have to hold the “bad systems” accountable.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sach Oliver

Education is the Key to Winning Consistently in Personal Injury Cases

Sach Oliver — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:35:43 GMT

Our firm strongly believes in lifelong education. We are constantly educating ourselves on the newest and latest trial tactics in the field of personal injury. We are also always keeping up with the ever changing law that applies to personal injury. Trial attorneys who represent folks who have been injured should always be educating themselves on how to better represent their clients.

In the last two weeks I have attended two great seminars where the learning was phenomenal. The American Association for Justice held its winter convention in New Orleans, LA. I attended presentations on “Taking Exceptional Depositions” and “New Approaches in Handling Experts” and the list goes on. The Southern Trial Lawyers Association held its convention this past weekend as well. I attended classes on “How to Litigate Products Liability Cases against Motor Companies” and “Crashworthiness” and I also spoke to the group about “Using Harm Scales in Closing Arguments.”

Education allows attorneys to be cutting edge and obtain true justice for our clients.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sach Oliver

Has Your Nurse Had a Flu Shot?

Ryan Scott — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:12:10 GMT

According to a recent study, nearly 60 percent of healthcare workers do not get a flu shot. According to the study, one of the most common excuses why is that the worker is afraid the shot itself will make him or her ill. This faulty logic is especially surprising because healthcare professionals should know that the flu shot is not a live virus and cannot make anyone sick, says Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventative Medicine at Vanderbilt University.

The Center for Disease Control recommends that all healthcare workers, from volunteers to doctors, get vaccinated. Dr. Schaffner takes it a step further arguing, "It is a professional obligation on the part of health care workers to make sure that they are as protected against influenza as possible." Citing the ease as which the virus can be spread, Dr. Schaffner says vaccination should be as standard and common as washing one's hands.

While Schaffner admits it is hard to link flu outbreaks in patients to healthcare professionals (because of the variety of ways in which a patient could possibly become infected) he notes, "Being in close proximity to patients, having conversations with them, bending over their bed, seeing them in the clinic while you're doing procedures, you would be breathing out viruses and spreading influenza into your patients."

It is no stretch to link unvaccinated healthcare workers to patients who eventually contract the virus. So, the next time you are in a healthcare setting, you may want to inquire as to the hospital or clinic's policy on vaccination. If it is simply an option (and not a requirement), you may want to ask your provider if he or she has been vaccinated. And, of course, Dr. Schaffner says the best way to be protected is to get vaccinated yourself!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ryan Scott

A Second Opinion is a First-Rate Idea

Ryan Scott — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:06:30 GMT

If you are anything like me, getting a first opinion from doctor is a big step in its own right. However, we see more and more that a second opinion can be invaluable to the safety of our clients. Unfortunately, many of the clients we see are like me, they didn't want to go to the doctor in the first place, and they sure don't want to go to another doctor, especially when the first doctor says they are fine.

However, it has been our experience that most of our clients who were the victim of a misdiagnosis, and were told they were fine, knew in their heart of hearts that they were not. It is a tough pill to swallow-- that the doctor we put our trust in isn't right-- but erring on the side of caution can save your health and protect you legally.

In nearly every focus group we do concerning a misdiagnosis or medical negligence, the jurors are quick to ask if the victim got a second opinion. Even though statistics confirm our own experience... that most people are not prone to getting second opinions, especially when they get (supposedly) good news, juries inevitably impose a higher standard of personal responsibility on the client than they do themselves. They almost always say, "I would have gotten second opinion," or "he should have known that the doctor was wrong by the way he was feeling."

While, for most of us, it goes against our nature to question our doctor and subject ourselves to another round of tests and office visits, ultimately, it is a good idea for our own health and legal safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ryan Scott

Protection Yourself Against Hospital Acquired Infections

Frank Bailey — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:58:30 GMT

The Committee to Recuce Infection Deaths (RID) lists 15 ways you can protect yourself against hospital acquired infections. The Committee has an excellent site you should visit. They have found, the easiest step is to just ask hospital staff to clean their hands before treating you, and ask visitors to clean their hands too. According to the CID this is the single most important way to protect yourself in the hospital. If you're worried about being too aggressive, just remember your life could be at stake. All caregivers should clean their hands before treating you. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are more effective at removing most bacteria than soap and water. Do not hesitate to say: "Excuse me, but there's an alcohol dispenser right there. Would you mind using that before you touch me, so I can see it?" Don't be falsely assured by gloves. If caregivers have pulled on gloves without cleaning their hands first, the gloves are already contaminated before they touch you.

Studies show that, nearly three quarters of patients' rooms are contaminated with MRSA and 69% with VRE. In one study, 42% of gloves worn by hospital personnel who had no direct patient contact but who touched contaminated surfaces became contaminated.

A Concensus Statement by a multidisciplinary group of experts asked by the American Medical Association to provide guidelines for infection control cautions that: "In some cases caregivers actually go from patient to patient without changing their gloves, apparently confusing self-protection" with patient protection.

If you or a loved one are about to be hospitalized you can protect yourself. Read the information on the RID website and learn the 15 ways you can protect yourself.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Frank Bailey

Should Patients Pay for Hospital Acquired Infections?

Frank Bailey — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:11:42 GMT

How would you feel if you took your car in for a $35.00 oil change; the mechanic dropped your car off the lift blowing out all of your tires and caused over a $1000.00 dollars in damage to your tires, would you pay for new tires so you could drive home? I hope not!

But that is just what has been happening in American hospitals on a daily basis. If a patient goes into a hospital for minor surgery and contracts an infection in the hospital because the hospital failed to use basic sanitiary practices, the hospital charges the patient for the antibiotics, surgery and extra days needed to treat the infection which can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But that is starting to change. As of October 1, 2008, Medicare, stoped paying hospitals for several types of obviously preventable infections. These infections are so preventable that Medicare authorities call them "never" events. That means they should never happen. Lawyers are beginning to have the evidence they need to win these cases involving hospital acquired infections.

In the past, Medicare's indifference to quality and safety gave hospitals little incentive to be careful. As long as Medicare paid the hospital for the extra cost to treat preventable infections what incentive did hospitals have to clean up their act? Arkansas has passed legislation to require hospitals to report their infection rate to the Arkansas Department of Health, but these infection rates are still not aviable to the public

CDC has documented that hospital acquired infections kill more than 100,000 people in America each year. That's more than AIDS, breast cancer and automobile accidents combined.

The evidence is compelling that the infections Medicare will no longer pay to treat are preventable and patients can recover for their harms and losses.

Thomas Valuck, medical officer for Medicare, explains that the evidence is solid. He cites several hospitals around the country that have totally eradicated one of the deadliest "never" infections, central line blood stream infections.

When very sick patients are medicated through a tube inserted into their artery, the risk is that bacteria will invade the tube and enter the blood stream.

Rigorous hygiene, including clean hands and sterile drapes, are needed to keep the bacteria away from the tube. Valuck cited a recent survey from the patient safety group Leapfrog showing that 87 percent of hospitals fail to consistently follow the proven steps to prevent infections.

New York's experience proves that hospitals committed to eradicating infections can do it. Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City reports that it has hasn't had a central line bloodstream infection in the cardiac intensive care unit since Nov. 25, 2005. Think of the number of families that have left the hospital grateful rather than grieving, as a result.

Over the next few weeks we will be publishing some steps patients can take to protect themselves from these hospital acquired infections. If you have an interest in preventing more families from this horrible experience I invite you to join with us in fighting this preventable disease.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Frank Bailey