The Truth About the National Deficit and Medical Malpractice

The bipartisan national debt commission thinks that reforming medical malpractice is a way to curb soaring health care costs and decrease the national debt, but let’s really look at the numbers here.

 The panel says that reforming medical malpractice will save taxpayers $17 billion by 2020. This sounds like a big number until you realize that the United States spends $2.4 trillion dollars a year on health care. Medical liability costs are only 2.4% of that sitting right around at $55.6 billion. So, really this savings is just a fraction of a percent, but hey, any amount helps right?

No. Medical malpractice suits are supposed to prevent medical errors and compensate patients and their families for losses. The panel suggests creating a “health court” for medical malpractice, one that may streamline cases and reduce costs, but also may forgive errors as long as certain policies or equipment is used. This in turn would make medical errors a bigger problem. The United States’ goal should be a goal in which we not only focus on saving money but also where we offer the best care possible.

A common misconception of medical malpractice lawsuits is that they are unnecessary and are extremely unreasonable. However, recent data shows that the number of claims is actually on the decline and that the dollar amount requested has actually stabilized in the past ten years. There are many advances in health care that contribute to this decline including patient safety initiatives and improvements in health care. Large claims generally receive the most media attention but in reality they only compromise 0.3% of all claims.

LegalView has lawyers that specialize in medical malpractice. If you think you have been a victim of medical malpractice please, contact LegalView today to learn more about your options. Call 1-866-9LAW-NOW (1-866-952-9669).

Tags: Medical Malpractice

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 at 11:27 am and is filed under Medical Malpractice. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Finding a Mesothelioma Lawyer & Medical Specialist

When diagnosed with mesothelioma, the first step is often to find doctors who specialize in occupational diseases such as this.  Standard treatment of mesothelioma often involves the use of more than one kind of specialist since it usually combines surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy.  Also, since mesothelioma is incurable and treatments focus on symptom relief, other specialists involved may be palliative or hospice nurses.
Locating a surgeon, oncologist and radiologist to join your healthcare team can be overwhelming, especially after just being told you or your loved one has mesothelioma.  Often your primary care physician or local hospital may have referrals, as well as cancer support groups in your area.
Along with medical specialists, it is advised to also seek legal counsel soon after being diagnosed.  If you have mesothelioma, the primary cause is exposure to asbestos.  Exposure usually occurred during course of employment when working around asbestos containing materials.  The manufacturers, distributors and sellers of ACMs knew that asbestos was dangerous and yet for decades did not take any actions to warn, prevent or protect workers.  Those parties have a legal obligation now to help pay for any damages, medical costs, and lost wages caused by your illness.
Often, the questions you ask a specialist will be similar to the ones you would ask an asbestos attorney.  First you want to make sure they both specialize in mesothelioma, have been practicing in this field for many years, and have a track record of success.  For the medical specialist, you will want to also know what types of treatment they recommend and if they participate in any clinical trials and mesothelioma research.
Clinical trials are conducted through the National Cancer Institute and are interventional studies that investigate new and alternative treatments to cancer.  Clinical trial participation is recommended for many mesothelioma patients since conventional therapies have not been very effective at extending survival times or providing long term improved quality of life.
For both doctor and lawyer, you will want someone who you can trust, who is accessible, and who is an expert in the field.  One important factor is to have a good relationship in which you feel you are listened to, responded to, and strongly advocated for your best well-being.
Doctors and mesothelioma attorneys who are recognized experts in their field will understand your needs and the critical timing of meeting them.  They can offer very useful information to help you through every step of both the treatment and legal process.  Many attorneys will be able to refer you to specialists in your area and offer other resources helpful immediately after diagnosis and during treatment.  The best measuring stick for finding both the best doctors and best attorney is to find those that specialize in mesothelioma.  It is a rare illness, and those that focus only on mesothelioma will have the most knowledge and expertise, able to meet your needs more quickly and successfully than others.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm and is filed under Mesothelioma, asbestos attorneys. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
View the original article here

Paper Diagnostics Aimed to Bring Down Costs of Medical Testing

Many people are at least partially aware of paper-based diagnostic testing. The technique is most commonly associated with over-the-counter pregnancy tests. While the technique has been around for a while, researchers are now attempting to bring paper-based diagnostics to more complex medical testing. If successful, it could mean a dramatic reduction in medical costs and greatly improve accessibility in developing nations.

At the University of Washington in Seattle, a team of researchers has made a breakthrough that may open the doors to a wide variety of paper diagnostics. Their work deals with amplifying the signal of a test antibody by improving the timing of chemical delivery associated with the paper test. Success in this endeavor essentially amplifies the sensitivity of the test, allowing for indicators of a disease to be identified even at low levels.

Ultimately, the goal of the team is to replace complicated and expensive ELISA instrumentation. ELISA stands for enzyme-lined immonsorbent assay, a test that is currently used to detect proteins and antibodies linked to a variety of illnesses. While this current technology is highly accurate, it also requires large, expensive equipment that must be monitored by lab technicians. Switching over to paper-based diagnostics would put such tests into a credit-card sized piece of paper and eliminate the need for trained professionals.

With the amplification problem now solved, the team in Seattle is now working on packaging the technology so that it can be easily distributed.

In related news, a team of researchers at Australia’s Monash University has successfully created a paper diagnostic test for determining blood type. The simple dipstick test requires a drop of blood to be placed on a piece of paper that has been imprinted with antibodies. Depending on how the blood seeps into the paper, testers can quickly and easily determine if a patient’s blood type is A, B, AB or O.

Knowledge of blood type is integral for a number of reasons, including blood transfusion. The speed and affordability of the new test could greatly improve the success rate of such procedures in developing countries. According the team, the same basic technology may also be extended to blood tests that diagnose blood-related illnesses such as tuberculosis, anemia and diabetes.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 8th, 2010 at 7:39 am and is filed under Medical news. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

View the original article here