- No, ma’am, I’m not going to diagnose your kids with PTSD after your low-speed auto accident, but I’m sure some other doc will [White Coat]
- In time to avert catastrophe? “FDA reboot of antibiotic development” [David Shlaes] Role of price controls in shortages of sterile injectables [ACSH]
- Trial lawyers launch campaign to roll back MICRA, law that has limited California med-mal payouts [KPBS, L.A. Times]
- DNA panopticon beckons: “Mississippi law requires cord blood from some teen moms” [Emily Wagster Pettus, AP, earlier]
- Dear N.Y. Times: please make up your mind whether it’s OK to break health privacy laws [SmarterTimes]
- Committee of AMA decides on schedules by which doctors are paid. And you were expecting it to be done how? [Arnold Kling]
- “The more your doctor worries about getting sued, the more you’ll end up spending on medical tests” [MarketWatch on Michelle Mello study in Health Affairs] Oklahoma high court used strained rationale to strike down certificate of merit law [Bill of Health]
Filed under: California, claims fraud, defensive medicine, FDA, medical malpractice, Oklahoma
2 Comments
In reference to the first bullet, this is another pretty egregious “Allstate-itis” example.
http://getbetterhealth.com/quot-allstate-itis-quot/2008.02.07
>Trial lawyers launch campaign to roll back MICRA, law that has limited California med-mal payouts [KPBS, L.A. Times]
The tort bar can argue plausibly that the $250,000 cap on pain-and-suffering, set in 1976, should be raised to compensate for inflation, with automatic annual inflation adjustments in the future. Obviously, they are after much bigger payouts than that. But defenders of the cap (and of affordability in health care generally) might sidetrack a referendum calamity by preemptively adopting inflation adjustment.