Quote Originally Posted by markw
No-one disputes that errors are made and redress is not due, but at some point protecting oneself from "possibilites" becomes more of the goal of the doctor than treating the patient.

"The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.

About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons."

I'm pretty sure these costs do add up...

And, as far as the careful vetting of malpractice cases, how can this be justified?

"A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 analyzed more than 1,400 malpractice claims and found that in almost 40 percent of cases, no medical error was involved"

So, it looks to me there's a bit of a "hail mary" approach to a lot of these lawsuits.

Here's the teaser article. There's a link to the full study in there.
It was not the first of its kind. See the GAO report from 2003 that discredited the AMA's attempted use of similar surveys that were determined to be less than reliable.

For the GAO report of 2003, the AMA did not identify Mass. as a problem state. What happened between 03 and the release of this study? What's going on in the Mass state legislature? What are the political winds in Mass?

If it's so bad in Mass, why did less than 25% of doctors respond to the survey?

Why does the study start with reliance on PRI findings?

Go here and read this report prepared under a Republican Administration:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf