Doctor Drops Patient Who Won't Sign Malpractice Initiative

RICHLAND, Wash. -- A doctor in Washington state has dropped a patient because she refused to sign an initiative to limit malpractice awards.

Obstetrician Mark Mulholland said he didn't want to continue the doctor-patient relationship because of their philosophical difference. He said he offered to provide emergency care for 30 days and refer her to another doctor.

Jamie Chavez said she feels she was "fired" as a patient and has filed a complaint with a state disciplinary board.

Mulholland said his malpractice insurance premiums rose 30 percent last year.

He collected more than 2,000 signatures for the initiative, which doctors have submitted to the state Legislature. It would limit compensation for pain and suffering in malpractice lawsuits.

Trial lawyers have submitted a competing initiative. Both are likely to end up on a ballot for voters to decide.



I'm willing to bet anything this doctor is a Shrub supporter. He's bought into his propaganda instead of looking into the possibility

I'm getting ready to enter the medical field as a Medical Transcriptionist and I find all this crap to be very disturbing for many reasons. Not the least of which is a doctor dropping a patient for something like this.

:crazy:

:+

You never finished your sentence.

I got distracted and posted thinking I had finished.

What I meant to say was, "He's bought into Bush's propaganda instead of looking into the possibility that the insurance companies are the ones raising his malpractice insurance or that other factors are involved."

:think:

Isn't there a law or something prohibiting a doctor from turning away a patient?

However, this is a grey area. Docs aren't slaves, and any doc who feels there is no rapport with a given patient and that he can't treat that patient in an appropriate manner is required to refer that patient to a physician who can.

Think of the docs who refuse Medicaid patients because they don't want to hire a large staff to cope with the paperwork as an example of docs turning down patients.

Personally, I think this bozo compelling politics before he provides care should be disciplined. This is political extortion.

He also needs a lesson in economics. His premiums didn't go up because people who are injured are suing. His premiums went up because malpractice companies lost money in the stock market.

a large staff.

Filing electronically requires the same input/work from the staff. The doctor supposedly gets paid faster. The staff is still necessary to "fight" the insurance companies and input the data into the electronic file. After the claim is rejected, it must be resubmitted. Phone calls must be made. Patients must be notified after the insurance company refuses to pay. Then the patient has to try to make the insurance company pay. Then the office staff has to make calls and send letters to the patients trying to get THEM to pay.

I had dental insurance through a Dental HMO. After the dentist saw the work I wanted to have done, they "fired" me.

They only make money if the clients have teeth cleaning only. They didn't want to do anything beyond that.

The OB doc that the article mentioned is not obligated to serve this patient.

There are, however, laws regarding trauma care, and most of those are state laws which vary from each individual one. Emergency docs, in those states, are required to give urgent care regardless of ability to pay. I'm pretty sure the BFEE is working on getting rid of that as well.

A doctor doesn't have to treat anybody. In an office I work in patients have been fired for being abusive to the staff, for example. Our Doc feels like we shouldn't have to put up with someone who is so vile that he/she makes someone cry. It happens.

I can understand that. I too work in a place where sometimes the customers make our employees cry. I just worry about things like this because there is a possibility for somone to never get the care they need because no doctors will take them. It's very unlikely, but just the possibility saddens me.

and $1000 to the misnamed Physicians for Women's Health, which donated 90% of their funds to republicans.

was fifteen years ago. My health insurance is 400% more than it was when I first bought the coverage twelve years ago (and I'm willing to bet that it goes up twice again this year as it has in previous years). My car insurance on both cars has gone up half again as much as it used to be.

We're all paying higher rates on all kinds of insurances these days, and I doubt that it has anywhere near as much to do with the payout that the insurance companies are making as they try to claim it does...

180

Fuck the hippocratic oath - if your politics aren't in line with his, then you can go to hell, he says.

Fuck him. Let no person of good conscience solicit his services so long as he violates his oath to the profession.

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone."

And as long as he violates his oath, let the oath's consequences become his:

"If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

doctors are doing that now. 5 OB/GYN's in my husband's practice are talking to their lawyers about doing it.

I've had a hell of a time finding a ped to treat my son because we aren't vaccinating him. He had a serious reaction but many doctors won't take children who aren't given thier injections on schedule no matter what the reason.

Most won't take patients that refuse vaccination, because they fear being sued. Noncompliance of a patient with a negative outcome is still the doctor's fault? One case in point, a doc was successfully sued by an obese, diabetic smoker's family, because the patient died of a heart attack. Why, despite warning the patient, they claimed his warning was not stern enough. The reality, the patient died from life long body abuse and a systemic illness.

Patients who do not follow a doctors advice scare me, I document everything. But as my example shows, a suit could claim that I was at fault, even though the patient was non-compliant.

Fear seems to have clouded the minds of your local pediatricians. If your son had a serious reaction, your concerns are warranted. However, docs are feeling attacked and are afraid, defensive medicine is the only way to survive.

Did the patients family win the suit? If they did, it's not only the insane patients and their families, but the juries as well!

I've sure heard of cases where there was negligence, and a suit was warranted, but the case you described wasn't one of them.

I only wish I could think of a way to fix this problem. As a patient, it pisses me off that my GP won't use his knowledge to diagnose anything without doing a lot of CYA tests.

You can't legislate morality, or common sense. It's too bad you can't.

sign such a thing is a disaster waiting to happen.

You did not give a link. To clarify, the doc wanted the patient to sign an initiative in support of legislation? Or was it a legal document declaring that the patient would not sue in the event of an untoward event?

The latter has been more common. It is a document some doctors have patients sign, in addition to the typical consent form. It doesn't prevent a lawsuit, but supports the doctor's position should a lawsuit be brought simply because of an untoward outcome, not due to negligence or malpractice.

If the doc wanted the patient to support his petition for legislation, and she refused, that simply is not grounds to dismiss a patient. My office has information in the waiting room about the problem of malpractice, insurance rates etc. They are free to read it or not, and free to agree with it or not.

A big problem exists on both sides. Patients harmed by negligent physicians should be compensated and those physicians identified and prevented from causing further harm. On the other hand, doctors are leaving states, or more commonly, are being forced out of states, because the can't afford, or cannot obtain malpractice insurance. My town has lost high risk pregnancy Ob/Gyns, neurosurgeons, and we almost lost our pediatric surgery and hand surgery groups. If you cannot get insurance, you cannot practice in my state.

Protect the patient, prevent lawyers from bring nonsense suits, allow the doctor to practice, and regulate the insurance companies.


addendum. Got the link above, same as the text. Seems it was just a state initiative. Unethical to force a patient to agree with your opinion.

/eom

Not propaganda, the vast majority of lawsuits are "nonsense." Unless of course you are the lawyer benefiting from bring the suit. Lawyers go through medical charts and bring everyone associated with the case into the suit, regardless of culpability. The majority of malpractice suits fail, because they are without merit. Then again, you are right. The propaganda does roll on, from the trial lawyers.

You could cite numerous instances where I am in error, as I could do the same in the contrary. Nothing will ever be accomplished to solve this problem unless all sides can reach an understanding. The bottom line is that there is a problem, and all sides bear some of the blame.

... not lawsuits at large...

There are many reasons lawsuits fail (from who's perspective are you speaking there? lol). The idea that the only reason for this is that they are without merit is laughable.

There are a variety of large-scale datasets that say all of this, and more. Are you familiar with them? I find Public Citizen's Congress Watch work to be the most accessible, but there's a bunch of material, with similar conclusions, from RAND and other thinktanks...

There aren't that many suits in the first place.

The ones that are filed are not frivolous.

Jury verdicts have been studied, and determined to be reasonable by physicians.

And more.

I have read the info you mention and just as many pages offering a differing opinion. You are correct, many lawsuits fail, for a variety of reasons. I do not imply that they all do so because they lack merit, but many do fail on this account.

There are frivolous lawsuits, that is, lawsuits that are filed which are not supported by the facts of the case, but done so in an attempt of gain profit, (my definition.)

Whether you support tort reform or not, there is a problem in health care. The legal system is part of the problem, as is the medical and insurance industry.

The Public Citizen's page tends to take the polarized view of the trial lawyers, which is in error. And taking this view will not solve the problem.

Time for bed...............

a few lawyers, just as there are a few doctors, who don't belong in their respective fields. Doctors AND lawyers need to weed out bad actors. If they both did so, it would improve the situation, but the problem will never be solved because of the insurance companies and corporate ownership of hospitals and practices. Medical care should not be dispensed according to a for-profit organization's criteria. I don't know how old you are, but I remember when most hospitals were not-for-profit with boards of directors from the community. Hospital administrators and staff were paid quite well by community standards. There were many fewer hospital beds per population then than now - much more cost effective. There was little or no competition between hospitals and no wasteful underutilized facilities.

As a youngster I spent 4 days in the hospital without insurance and my parents were able to pay the bill.

In other words, the REAL problem with medical care and costs in this country began with the insurance companies and development of corporate ownership of hospitals and physicians. All are profit driven. Good care of patients is not their goal, profits for stockholders is.

I have a site called "Grammar and Usage for the Non-Expert." It is very popular with medical transcriptionists, and I hear from them all the time.

I am a retired medical transcriptionist. We shouldn't need sites such as yours, as we are supposed to be "transcribing." The physicians should be required to study grammar. You wouldn't believe the things they say - if they only knew what the transcriptionist does for them.

One sentence that remains burned into my brain from many years ago, uttered by a physician who spoke English as a second language: "The patient was a blood vomit, one opportunity only." Without me (or some other MT) to fix up his reports, they would have been a source of amusement and confusion for every reader. The harder an MT has to work on unintelligible reports like this the less money we make (we are not salaried or paid by the hour, usually, but only compensated by the volume of work we produce). It just never seemed fair to me.

my right to sue if he makes a mistake....i would be on the quick to find me another doctor....why would the doctor be afraid that i'd sue him...unless he is afraid of his abilities as a doctor.

In fact, a couple of years ago, i went to see a doctor who had instructed his office staff that unless i, (or anyone else) would sign a paper stating that i, (or whoever else) would assume responsibility for paying him whatever balance between his fee and what the HMO paid him, he would not even see us.

I told the office staff that the doctor had a contract with the HMO. That according to his contract with the HMO he could only bill for the amount of the CO-PAY agreed to between him and the HMO and that any billing over and in excess of the HMO contract he had signed with them was illegal.

I walked out of the office and when I got home, I reported the doctor to the HMO...and it was not an easy step for me to take... i was simply just pushed as far as i could go.

the HMO did take down the information and referred me to another doctor who was faithful to his contract with the HMO.

I'm firing the doctor.