File under: Bad ideas in medicine

It appears that some doctors in North Jersey — and I suspect elsewhere in the state — are “are asking patients to sign a contract promising not to sue for malpractice” as a way of trying to control skyrocketing insurance costs.

As The Record reported on Sunday, the contracts are a condition of treatment and replace litigation with binding arbitration as the only recourse a patient would have should the doctor not live up to his or her end of the bargain. In addition, the contracts cap pain and suffering awards.

The contract, the story says, “blames patient lawsuits for ‘ever-escalating’ malpractice insurance rates” — a dubious assumption given that the insurance crisis faced by doctors has more to do with avaricious insurance companies than anything else. the contract, therefore, does little more than potentially penalize patients — a notion The Record rightly criticizes today:

(P)atients didn’t cause this problem. Patients should not have to sign away their rights to fix it.

The contract that patients sign states that rising premium costs are caused by patient lawsuits. Evidence doesn’t back that up. From 2001 to 2003, New Jersey had a 21 percent decline in malpractice payouts. Nationally, payouts have also fallen.

Just as when New Jersey’s auto insurance rates spiraled out of control in the 1990s, the malpractice premium increases are caused by a complex mix of factors. It is not an easy fix. The Legislature was right a few years ago to reject the idea of capping jury awards for malpractice victims. But the state needs to look for other solutions, including possible limits on the size of yearly premium hikes to doctors.

In the end, the doctors are making the wrong call on this. Rather than go after patients, they should band together with them and take on the insurance companies.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Runner’s diary, Tuesday and catching up

I’ve been remiss on this, but I did five miles today outdoors. A bit cooler than I expected, but I had a vest on and worked up quite the sweat. Listened to the new Artic Monkeys‘ disc, Favourite Worst Nightmare (a review to follow later this week, once I digest it) on the iPod.

No run on Monday — 4,000 meters on the rower and 10 miles on the bike.

As for last week, I finished up with a four-mile run on Thursday and a three-mile run on Friday for 19 miles total for the week.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

News that hits home

I’ve been following this story — “News Corp. Makes a Bid for Dow Jones” — with a bit of trepidation, partly for personal reasons and partly because of what a Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal might mean for the industry and the Journal itself.

On the personal side, my wife works for Dow Jones on the business side and any sale could have major ramifications for the workforce. Basically, I have no idea of a sale would mean layoffs or what it would do to her benefit package — the uncertainty is a bit scary.

As for the industry, the bigger Murdoch gets, the more his brand of tabloid-style journalism spreads. Right now, the Journal news pages are among the finest in the business, offering a level of in-depth reporting found few other places.

Just as important, as Ari Berman points out in The Nation’s Notion blog, a sale to Murdoch could mean the end of the Journal’s impressive separation of news and opinion — the extremely conservative editorial page has no bearing on the reporting elsewhere in the paper.

Murdoch is known for pushing his publications, such as the once-liberal New York Post, to the right. Under Murdoch’s purview, would the news pages of the Wall Street Journal become more like its conservative editorial section?

I am hopeful that the announcement that the announcement by the Bancroft family at 4:30 today that the family, which owns a controlling interest in the company, “will vote shares constituting slightly more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting power of Dow Jones … against the proposal submitted by News Corporation.”

The Journal and Dow Jones have their problems. I just don’t see how Murdoch is the solution.

Jeff Jarvis isn’t so sure. Here is his BuzzMachine item on the potential sale.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.