|
| Home > Legal > Does money cloud your judgment? |
| Does money cloud your judgment? | | Date Created: Mar 07, 2005, 02:41 PM |
 The latest issue of Medical Economics has another cover article on malpractice. It's addressed to doctors and is entitled, Malpractice: Will A jury think money clouds your judgment?
Interesting question. The obvious retort is, "It sure clouds the judgment of the plaintiff attorneys".
If you have no money it doesn't matter what you did, contingency fee lawyers will not go after you. If you have insurance coverage or a lot of money to go after, it doesn't matter what you did, they will go after you if they think they have a chance of forcing a settlement or convincing a jury to award that insurance money. "It's not personal". "It's the cost of doing business". And when there are caps on how much a contingency fee lawyer can make, experience has shown they will sue for the max every time or decide it isn't worth the time or effort and pass on the case. This is kind of like a burglar deciding which house to rob -- the one with the security system, the doors locked, and nothing obvious to steal, or the expensive house with the doors unlocked and no security system.
The reality is that plaintiff attorneys, and especially those working on a contingency fee basis, have a huge vested interest in the outcome. Or more apropos, they have an enormous financial stake in winning. This would be more than enough to get a judged recused from the case, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for the plaintiff attorney.
But of course they're happy to make it a problem for the physician. In addition to letting insurance companies dictate what they will and will not cover and how much they're going to pay for it (and when), some managed care insurance companies have also devised an incentive for doctors to not use covered services and supposedly pay the doctors a percentage of the savings from this "managed care". Sounds like that might influence the doctor's decisions wouldn't it? Not a problem for the plaintiff attorney though.
The problem is, of course, that malpractice trials have little to do with policing doctors or the actual practicing medicine. They have everything to do with using perceived bad outcomes (whether real or not, whether "caused" by actual negligence or not) to make money for plaintiff attorneys (and as an afterthought, their clients). If doctors buy into the insurance racket, particularly the managed care variety, they're just making it easier for the plaintiff attorneys (who would deny their own financial interest up and down) to make it look like they're doing it for the money. Managed care companies have actually sought government protection from getting sued themselves.
The answer is that doctors need to be making decisions with their patients as individuals. This includes the costs, the risks, and the possible consequences of not doing a test or treatment. If the patient gets to choose, then they assume the costs and the consequences. No third party involved. We do this all the time with cars (with or without insurance), dental care, and vital things like food.
Of course doctors have more money to go after... |
|
|
|
|
|
