Litigious HMO legislation could well be a giant step toward socialized medicine.
MICHAEL A. GLUECK
Dr. Glueck, a physician in Newport Beach, writes on medical and legal reform issues. This was co-authored by Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of Aberdeen, Wash., president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Almost everyone has commented on the "Patients' Bill of Rights." This gives us the chance as physicians to tell you - that once again - the mainly liberal press have missed some of the critical issues.
The battle in the Congress over the so-called "Patient Protection Act" is more about the direction the country will go. Do we want to give even more power to the trial lawyers who have effectively lynched the three branches of government or do we want to return some freedoms and choice to thepeople?
Despite tear-jerking TV ads playing nationally - the PBOR is not about more or better health care. In fact, the outcome could be just the opposite. If more and more of the health-care dollar is wasted in litigation there will be less for care. Patients' insurance and out-of-pocket costs will go up. You don't need an MBA or degree in economics to figure this one out. We rather think the "Patient's Bill of Rights" is more likely a "Bill of Fights." It really should be called the "Life Time Trial Lawyers Employment Compensation Act and Retirement Environment (LITTLECARE)."
Now we fully understand wanting to put the blame - and holding accountable- the party or parties responsible for egregious medical errors. Some physicians have been telling us for years that they are always being sued for decisions and errors not of their own making but by the managed care company or HMO.
If the trial lawyers agreed to a provision that excluded doctors from being sued and named when the HMO was at fault, there would be some logic to this. But what are the odds of this occurring? Based on history and past behavior the chances are fourfold: fat, slim, zero and less than zero.
You can predict that to the lawyer the programmed and reflexive response will be, "We can't allow that because that would leave an 'open chair' and the HMO will blame the doctor."
That's the creative device lawyers use to sue everybody or anybody who might possibly have been within a 50 mile radius of the alleged insult.
The real outcome of the PBOR would be twice as many suits against twice as many physicians and HMO defendants and twice the dollar amounts of the settlements or more. That does not even account for the costs of twice the number of defendant lawyers - who are also part of the offensive and defensive assembly line of litigation.
On the other hand, there are so many loopholes for the plans to escape responsibility that the looming specter of massive litigation may be blown way out of proportion. The 175 pages of the bill has so many ifs, ands, mays and coulds that if you don't file your complaint when the moon is in the right house you may not be able to sue at all. But, of course, that doesn't mean that lawyers won't rack up the hours trying to figure it all out. And ultimately, your insurance company pays their bill. That translates to higher premiums for the patient. Then the liberal left will yell about the need to control costs.
If Senator Kennedy gets his way, this is the next step to total government control of medicine - socialize the insurance first, then the rest falls into place. Socialized insurance has a nicer ring than socialized medicine.
There is one scenario that might be helpful to society. The lawyers' plan could lead them to inadvertantly "kill the proverbial golden goose." There exists the possibility that the PBOR would allow the trial lawyers to decimate the entire managed-care industry within a year. We could then hope for a return to the old system of quality care and restore a healthy patient-doctor relationship.
In parting, all we ask is that when the trial lawyers sue HMOs to death they do it quickly humanely and with enough pain medication. Call itHMOEuthanasia!
Copyright 2001The Orange County Register
