Comments on: Why the Government Needs to Leave Healthcare

By: BJ Lawson

BJ Lawson — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:49:06 +0000

Barbara — Amen, you are right on. Food and drink are by far the most important “drugs” based upon the fact that we consume them constantly.

I was amazed throughout my medical training how little was taught about nutrition, and how modern medicine emphasizes symptom treatment via medicine versus optimizing health. It’s tougher to convince people to modify their lifestyles than pop a pill once a day…

By: Barbara Moore

Barbara Moore — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:33:36 +0000

Dr. Lawson–I believe that we must take responsibility for our own health and what we put into our bodies–it should be mandatory that good nutrition ,exercise be taught from grade 1 in school–parents cannot do this at home when they think a hamburger, fries and a coke are dinner–courses in health would have been more valuable to me than algebra I am sure–at age 72 I am healthy but could do better–with a doctor who would honestly listen to me without wanting to prescribe a pill I could do better–I do not know what the statistics are but I believe that the Majority of our health problems today are diet and environment related–yes, our children also need to know what to avoid for good health–my 5year old and 10 year old grandchildren already know the basics of health and take pride in helping me shop for healthy food and they are always asking questions (which I encourage) IT CAN BE DONE1

By: BJ Lawson

BJ Lawson — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:36:58 +0000

jb — The federal “war on drugs” is quite simply unconstitutional, and must be stopped. Regulations on the use of marijuana, and things like industrial hemp, are for the states to decide based upon the 10th amendment.

By: John B

John B — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:43:19 +0000

Dr Lawson,
What is your position on the “war on drugs?” I am interested in particular in your position on medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and industrial hemp.
Thanks,
jb

By: BJ Lawson

BJ Lawson — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:37:38 +0000

Swati - We have a serious problem with malpractice costs and lawsuits, although some specialties are more affected than others. Neurosurgery and obstetrics are two of the most costly specialties with respect to malpractice insurance. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the average yearly premium for a neurosurgeon’s malpractice insurance in 2000 was $44,367. In 2004, it was $81,749, an 84 percent increase. The highest premiums nearly doubled from $200,000 to almost $400,000 in the same time period.

On the other end of the spectrum, anesthesiology has actually improved. Adjusted for inflation, malpractice premiums in anesthesiology decreased from $33,000 in 1985 to $21,000 in 2005 (http://depts.washington.edu/asaccp/prof/asa69_6_6_7.shtml).

The malpractice crisis defies easy solutions. How did anesthesiology see its premiums decrease? After being sued to the brink of economic extinction in the 1980s, anesthesiology embarked on a six-sigma based quality improvement initiative to systematically to identify failure points and reduce the variability in patient care. This effort was comprehensive and driven by the accrediting body itself, and objectively made the specialty safer and improved patient care. As patient safety improved, so did the cost of malpractice insurance. That’s the best case scenario.

Why are “high risk” specialties like OB and neurosurgery such tempting targets for litigious patients and attorneys? Clearly, both specialties have the potential for spectacularly bad outcomes. Non-technical factors such as the patient-doctor relationship (i.e., does the patient “like” the doctor) play a role, as well. Is there a solution?

Frankly, I don’t know. Anecdotally, I hear of many malpractice cases that appear, on the surface, frivolous. On the other hand, I have a relative who is an attorney and has spent time defending physicians. In trading stories with him, many of the suits he was defending were cases in which the physician appeared negligent relative to the standard of care.

I still have much to learn about this problem. On one hand, malpractice insurance costs are forcing providers in some parts of the country to abandon their practices. Other providers are simply dropping coverage all together, and letting their patients know that there will be little to recover in the event they even try to sue. On the other hand, a regulated/capped system seems more likely to keep bad doctors in practice, to the detriment of their patients.

From your experience, what are your thoughts?

By: swati

swati — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:57:53 +0000

what are your thoughts about malpractice costs, frivolous lawsuits, etc???

good luck BJ!

By: Duff

Duff — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:00:23 +0000

“campfires on the living room floor to roast marshmallows with your kids”. I love it. I wonder if I could convince my wife to go for that. I’m sure the kids would be into it.

By: wickle

wickle — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:01:26 +0000

During my brief time trying to sell life and health insurance for a non-HMO, one of the tips we had for countering the “why don’t you pay for routine check-ups?” question was, “Do you want your car insurance to pay for your oil changes?”

Of course, that was why this insurance cost a lot less than most … you used it when you needed it. not when you just wanted to have a doctor say, “Yep, you’re still alive.”

Certainly, the HMO model of insurance is counter-productive. By trying to limit costs, it runs them up.