Law   |   Economy   |   steve jobs   |   Investing   |   Marketing   |   Entrepreneurship   |   Recovery   |   Economic Policy   |   Globalization   |   Emerging Markets

The Latest Solutions from the U.S. Congress

More videos from this partner:

0
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
2,937 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
  • Transcript
Advertisement
There are 2 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
GregoryWonderwheel Avatar
GregoryWonderwheel
Posted: 11.20.07, 02:20 PM
A very interesting point about "defensive medicine" came up when they talked about who is responsible for decision making for defensive medicine: are law suits or doctors the people making the decision on tests? Do doctors actually ask for "unneeded" medical tests merely because they are afraid of a lawsuit? What does that mean if they do? What is the definition of "unneeded"? If a doctor says a test is unnecesssary, then isn't that also making a cost-benefit analysis about whether the test will provide needed information verses the cost of the test? If a doctor was really convinced that a test won't provide the information, then the doctor never orders the test. But the question is about when the test "might" give information and the doctor has to decide the percentage of value about what can be given by the test, whether or not a lawsuit might be involved. But if a doctor says, "I better ask for this test because a lawsuit my hold me liable if I didn't" then isn't that something we want? I don't want my doctor saying not to do a test that might give the information just because the doctors says "well, there's only a 20% chance that this test will give me the information I need, so I won't order the test." The doctor must be able to know the problem. I don't want my doctor saying, "I'm going to treat your problem as if it is XYZ but there is a 30% chance I'm wrong, and that test has a 30% chance of showing I'm wrong but I'm not going to ask for that test because .......(fill in the blank)."
GregoryWonderwheel Avatar
GregoryWonderwheel
Posted: 11.20.07, 01:24 PM
To think outside the box, I'm interested in the comment about the cost of health care being able to give $200,000 per doctor per zeven families. While I'm not to gullible as to take this at face value, because it doesn't realistically divide up health care costs, such as hosptial machinery costs that don't go to any individual doctor. Still the idea of having per patient relationships for doctors is interesting and worth brainstorming. What would be a realistic number of families for a doctor to have and get a guaranteed income from a nationalized or regulated health care system? That is a very interesting question.
Advertisement

Advertisement
Internet  |   New Media  |   Start-Ups  |   Personal Technology  |   Wireless  |   Computing  |   Engineering  |   CEOs
Religion  |   Gaming  |   Film  |   Fashion  |   Sex  |   Philosophy  |   Education  |   History  |   Arts  |   Music  |   Travel  |   Photography
occupy wall street  |   Election 2012  |   Muslim World  |   Healthcare  |   Social Issues  |   Foreign Policy  |   Terrorism  |   Capitol Hill
Law  |   Economy  |   steve jobs  |   Investing  |   Marketing  |   Entrepreneurship  |   Recovery  |   Economic Policy  |   Globalization  |   Emerging Markets
Climate Change  |   Energy  |   Sustainability  |   Environment  |   Transportation  |   Policy  |   Buildings
Space  |   Evolution  |   Physics  |   Social Sciences  |   Natural Sciences  |   DNA  |   Psychology  |   Biotech  |   Medicine  |   Anthropology  |   Astronomy
Watch Now