How Patients' High Deductible Insurance Plans Pose Malpractice Risks to Doctors

High deductible insurance plans require patients to take on more of the financial risk in exchange for lower monthly premiums.  Patients are increasingly choosing plans where they cover their own eligible expenses until costs reach a deductible that can be well into the thousands of dollars.  These high deductible insurance plans can pose a malpractice risk to doctors.

The number of patients with health insurance has increased due to the Affordable Care Act, however, most of these patients choose high deductible health plans.  The number of patients with these types of plans has increase to 17.4 million in January of 2014, up more than 12 percent from the previous year, according to Healthcare Finance.

The issue that physicians are seeing with these high deductible plans is that patients are making medical appointments less often for chronic care, and are also skipping medication refills or declining to pay their out-of-pocket costs for medical tests.

Patient choices to forgo aspects of their health care can have disconcerting implications for physicians.  A case reported in Massachusetts Medical Law Report demonstrates these potential consequences.  A physician was sued for malpractice by the family of a patient who died after a late stage cancer diagnosis.  The patient, a 65-year-old man was a patient of the physician for four years; however the physician never performed a complete physical exam during that time, including colon rectal cancer screening.

The cancer was not diagnosed until the patient went to the hospital with abdominal pain for several hours and no bowel movement for several days.  He underwent exploratory surgery where stage IIIB colon cancer was discovered.  The physician said he did not offer the patient cancer screening because he was only seeing him for blood pressure checks, not for full primary care.  The private-pay patient declined any further medical care beyond those blood pressure checks.  The case ultimately settled for $1.5 million.

The risk stems from the fact that physicians could be held responsible for patients who decline care and this risk is likely to increase as patients put off or skip screenings that are not covered by insurance. 

To protect themselves, physicians must explain the risks of skipping tests and then follow through on whether they have been performed or not.  Physicians must also document everything – the patient chart should reflect whether a patient declined appropriate screening tests, as well as whether the patient understands the possible consequences of that decision.

To learn more about the potential implications of high-deductible insurance on medical malpractice, contact us today.

Spending and Malpractice

Findings from a new study recently published in the BMJ and supported by the National Institutes of Health provide evidence for those who assert that practicing defensive medicine is a realistic alternative for physicians who would like to safeguard their careers and reputations.

The study focused on data between 2000 and 2009 that involved 24,637 doctors and 18,352,391 admissions to acute care hospitals in Florida. The data showed a connection between higher spending by doctors per patient and a decreased risk of incurring a medical malpractice claim.

There were 4,342 malpractice claims made during the time period under review. Generally, the analysis found that higher spending doctors get sued less often than lesser spending physicians. For example, in the obstetrics specialty, the likelihood of facing medical malpractice fell as an obstetrician performed more Cesarean sections and spent more per patient.

Directors of the study did admit limits to the findings, specifically that information on illness severity was not provided and doctors were not directly asked if their increased spending was motivated by defensive medicine. Nevertheless, even if the study doesn't necessarily demonstrate that increased spending was the direct cause of the decreased opportunity of facing a medical malpractice suit, it does demonstrate that there is a correlation and more research is probably needed to understand the link.

Contact us for your medical legal needs!

The Doctor Convicted of Murder

The successful conviction of a physician in a deliberate homicide case for their professional behavior is rare. Most cases of medical malpractice generally entail legal issues like negligence and recklessness resulting in civil claims and damages, nevertheless some cases do grow to the level of criminal accountability.

Dr. Lisa Tseng was recently convicted in California of three counts of second-degree murder for prescribing drugs which caused the overdose deaths of her patients.  Dr. Tseng had been notified by authorities of nine prior patients, primarily males in their 20s and 30s, that had died with drugs prescribed by her in their systems.

The prosecution asserted that Dr. Tseng knew that her patients were junkies and drug-seekers, and that she prescribed them drugs with the knowledge that it would cause their deaths. The defense countered that Tseng was not aware they were addicts and that they lied to her about their drug use. The defense contended that all prescribing was done in good faith.

The jury found Dr. Tseng guilty of overprescribing in 21 counts, and guilty of three counts of second-degree murder. Dr. Tseng will likely spend several years in California state prison.

Prescription drug misuse continues to rise nationwide resulting in the possibility for more doctors to be convicted in criminal cases for their drug prescribing practices.

For more information, contact us today!

Surgical Center Found Not Liable For Uninsured Physician’s Mistakes

Dr Richard Kaul, a physician trained in general surgery, anesthesiology, and interventional pain management, practiced in New Jersey until 2012 from 2002. In 2014, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners revoked his medical license after it was determined that he performed back operations without required training.

A former patient of his that he had performed a spinal fusion on in 2005 filed a suit against the Market Street Surgical Center as well as Dr. Kaul.  The patient argued that Kaul improperly placed surgical screws in the patient's foot which resulted in pinched nerves that made it permanently impossible for him to walk normally.

A trial court found Kaul guilty and awarded the patient $750,000, but the claim against the surgical center were dismissed. The patient appealed, but the verdict was upheld. New Jersey state law requires that physicians carry medical malpractice insurance, however, the law stipulates that penalties for not having insurance come from the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The court ruled that surgical facilities could not be held liable for damages. In addition, physicians weren't required to disclose to patients that they were uninsured. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, legal damages were not intended under the law.

In light of this recent decision, Kaul announced that he's pursuing reinstatement of his medical license and he continues to run a medical consulting company.

For more information, contact us today!

Patients, Communication, and Malpractice

Malpractice cases involving physicians can occasionally revolve around objections to an unexpected outcome rather than any actual injury or substandard care. 

The Doctors Company, a physician owned insurance provider, analyzed claims filed against orthopedists that resolved between 2007 and 2014.  They found that the top patient claims involved claims of improper management after surgery (16%), followed by diagnosis issues – delays or misdiagnoses (13%).

Upon further analysis, physicians at The Doctors Company found that in nearly 33% of the medical malpractice cases they surveyed, patients did not comply with the treatment plans which were provided by their physicians.  In addition, patient decisions contributed to additional complications in nearly 29% of the cases.

In a significant portion of the cases, patients did not follow instructions, did not go to follow-up appointments, or did not comply with restrictions on activities.  In a slight majority of those cases, documentation by physicians precluded patients’ claims that surgeries were not performed correctly or that they received inadequate care.

Insufficient communication between physicians, patients, and patients’ families was also found to be a factor in patient non-compliance in 12% of claims.  Insufficient communication can include lack of a common language, a poor interpersonal connection between the physician and patient, issues concerning informed consent about the risks of surgical procedures or medications.

Even if adequate care is provided, healthcare professionals must understand that a medical malpractice claim can happen if inadequate communication affects a patient’s expectations, post-surgery actions, or understanding of risks.  Physicians must make effective communication a priority in their practice.

Contact us for more information regarding medical malpractice risks.

Defensive Medicine or Careful Medicine?

Many doctors practice “defensive medicine” even knowing that it might drive up costs, waste time, and ultimately be unnecessary. The United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment formally describes defensive medicine as “when doctors order tests, procedures, or visits, or avoid high-risk patients or procedures primarily (but not necessarily solely) to reduce their exposure to malpractice liability.”

One ethics survey done in 2014 found that most doctors said that they have or would employ defensive medicine as a way to protect themselves, mainly from your threat of a medical malpractice suit.

Healthcare professionals recognize that defensive medicine is an important cause of increasing healthcare costs and do want to see the issue addressed as a problem.  An example of how this problem could be addressed is the Ottawa Ankle Rules, published at the Ottawa Civic Hospital in Canada. These policies establish a complete system of evaluation to determine which patients need x-rays to analyze a fracture in place of giving a costly x-ray to any patient with any kind of foot pain.

Physicians are very aware of the threat of malpractice lawsuits during their careers. For this reason, defensive medicine is unlikely to just go away. Many doctors view defensive medicine as careful medicine since it is one way to safeguard their careers.

To find out more, contact us today!

Managing Legal Risks Tied to the Growth in Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants

More non- physicians are offering medical care than ever before. Often the first caregiver an patient sees during a doctor visit isn't an actual physician. The growth in nurse practitioners and physician assistants indicates a growth in both their duties as well as their numbers. Midlevel providers can be quite a benefit to doctors, relieving them of some of their workload, however, it also increases legal risks. Doctors should understand those risks in order to mitigate them.

The Academy of Physician Assistants measures 85,000 certified physician assistants in the U.S. This represents a more than 100 percent increase in the last a decade. Nurse practitioners are also rising with over 155,000 nationwide, up 28-percent since 2003 according to The American Academy for Nurse Practitioners.

PAs may prescribe drugs but must function underneath the supervision of a doctor. NPs can practice, but must have a formal arrangement with a doctor. Health costs can be reduced by the additional work performed by midlevels, however, the legal risks are increased.

The most common lawsuits seen by midlevel providers are inadequate supervision, or practicing beyond the scope of training. Courts have ruled that the midlevel can be an agent of the physician, who can be held liable for neglect through vicarious liability even if he or she never saw or examined the individual. Physicians have to be conscious of the degree of supervision essential to retain a low liability risk.

To learn more about the legal risks associated with physician assistants and nurse practitioners, contact us!

Proctoring in Medicine and Associated Legal Risks

A proctor is somebody who supervises or monitors in an educational setting. In the practice of medicine, proctorship is somewhat more complicated. Comprehending the medical role of a proctor helps clarify the legal risk of proctoring.

In medicine, a proctor objectively evaluates the clinical competence of some other doctor. Proctors are utilized in hospitals to evaluate or to assess new and existing staff members that are requesting enlarged or new privileges.

The proctor does not provide patient care, but is only an onlooker. Thus, the proctor does not establish a physician-patient relationship and does not have any financial connection to the patient.

Since the proctor has no physician-patient relationship or a relationship with the doctor being proctored, the legal system is reluctant to hold proctors liable if performance falls below the standard of care. But in the event the physician shifts from a proctor into more of a preceptor job, she or he could be found liable.

A preceptor is very different from a proctor. Preceptorship serves an educational and training function, not a monitoring function. New skills can be taught by preceptors and they do develop a physician-patient relationship. A preceptor would hold the principal responsibility for a patient's care.

The line between observation and participating can be hard for a proctor. If a proctor volunteers to participate in a process, their function could then shift into that of a preceptor and can unknowingly produce a doctor-patient relationship. There is legal precedent for a preceptor being held liable for failing to intercede in a patient's care.

Proctoring is a standard method for credentialing physicians and surgeons, nevertheless, if they would like to avoid medical malpractice accountability, they must not participate in the decision making regarding the procedure or the procedure itself. Crossing that line can lead to medical malpractice risk. To learn more regarding the legal risks connected with proctoring contact us!

The Case of the Accidental Recording

A decision in late June by a Virginia jury represents a sad and stunning display of doctors behaving badly.

A Virginia lawyer went to a gastroenterologist for a colonoscopy. After chatting with anesthesiologist, Dr. Tiffany Ingham, he readied his smartphone to record the post-op directions so he wouldn’t miss anything. He then inadvertently struck the record option before the process started and recorded the whole colonoscopy.

On his drive home, he played the recording and was stunned by the crass dialogue about his body parts and a line of insults toward him specifically by Dr. Ingham.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physicians and their practices for medical malpractice, defamation, and punitive damages, even though the procedure went well.

The defense suggested the recording itself was not legal, yet in Virginia only 1 party must consent to recording of a conversation. The recording was entered into evidence and showed that Dr. Ingham talked about the patient’s sexuality, threatened to punch him in the face during the procedure, wondered if he had a sexually transmitted disease, and called him a “wimp” and other names.  

Dr. Ingham was found liable and the patient received $500,000 in damages. She has since moved to Florida and continues to practice there.

Doctors should be reminded to always appropriately discuss their patients, particularly in today’s developing technology age. A few inappropriate words can be quite harmful.

Contact us today for all your medical legal needs!

How Mid-Level Providers Raise a Physician's Malpractice Risk Through Vicarious Liability

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, considered midlevel practitioners or physician extenders, are very common in many physician practices. Midlevel providers supply many benefits for the doctor practice including: allowing a practice to serve more patients while also giving those patients more individual focus; they can be paid less than medical doctors; and lastly, they can be easier to get an appointment with since primary care physicians are retiring at an amazing rate in part due to increased government regulations and lack of compensation.

Midlevel providers can increase malpractice risks, however. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants work under the supervision of a medical doctor. Those physicians may be held responsible for their actions and for not adequately supervising the treatment they provide.

Vicarious liability is the legal term for extending liability through a connection with another party. Under this particular concept, a person who does not cause injury can be held liable through the relationship to the individual who did cause the injury.

Courts have ruled that the midlevel is an agent of the physician and can be held vicariously liable for negligence, even if the physician never saw the patient. Physicians often don't recognize the level of supervision needed to keep the liability risk low. Medscape does admit that the number of cases involving midlevel professionals is expected to grow given their increasing numbers in medical practices.

However, the American Academy of Physician Assistants sites numerous studies that show midlevel professionals are much less likely than physicians to be named in a malpractice suit. When they are sued, settlements and the awards are smaller than in cases involving doctors. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons notes that many cases involving midlevel professionals also name the supervising doctor. Settlements that don't involve the physician are uncommon.

Physicians can minimize their liability risk by taking preventative measures:

• Thorough Review when Hiring. In the event the doctor knows or has reason to know the the midlevel is incompetent or unfit, he/she can be found negligent.
• Clear Definition of Scope of Work. Physicians must be specific regarding the estimated obligations and obligations of the midlevel to avoid potential errors. 
• Collaborative Communication. Midlevels ought to be made to feel comfortable coming to the physician with any issues or difficulties and should maintain a collaborative relationship.
• Communication with Patients. Patients should know they are seeing a midlevel professional and not a doctor. 

Vicarious liability suits are anticipated to continue to climb since midlevel practitioners are the future in outpatient medicine and primary care.

To find out more regarding the legal risks associated with midlevel professionals and the best way to minimize them, contact us!

What to do when Insurance Companies Overrule Doctors

“That requires prior authorization” is not what we want to hear if we are a patient or a physician. However, requirements for prior approval for certain procedures and medications are here to stay in the health care industry. Problems arise as health care providers’ drive to treat their patients using the finest that medical technology provides clashes with the insurance company, who as a business, desires to control costs as much as possible. The insurance industry pays the vast majority of health care costs in this country and, since they are a business, they wish to make a profit, and controlling costs is a necessary component. Sometimes the requirement to control expenses as well as the need to treat patients can be reconciled. Frequently, however, both of these requirements cause a struggle.

One common area of conflict is in the use of antirejection medications for transplant patients. Transplant medications must be taken by transplant patients for the rest in their lives. This is often very expensive which is why insurance providers usually only cover the generic form of the drug, not the brand name. While generics generally work fine for some more common conditions like blood pressure, many physicians don't trust the generic type of antirejection drugs, frequently for good reason. However, because the expenses are being paid by the insurance companies, patients are typically left acquiring the generic medications against their doctors’ advice.

CBS News “60 Minutes” recently described the clash between insurance companies and physicians regarding mental illness. Cases of insurance providers, who never see the individual, are declining to cover the full course of treatment which has triggered needless suffering and in some cases, death.

Medical economists explain that the cost of complying with all the prior authorization requirements is time consuming and very costly. However, without a public policy solution for the issue, there are certainly a few things the physician may do to streamline the process.

First, if an insurance business is slow to pay or is too rigid in granting approvals, the doctor may consider not seeing patients with that insurance. If enough healthcare providers do this, insurance companies will begin to get the message and may modify their techniques.

Second, doctors must try to structure their prior approval processes in the most efficient way. Strategies include: use the insurance company’s website instead of calling on the telephone; try to get blanket approvals for common procedures and common medicines; centralize the approval operations; and lastly, doctors should learn which drugs and procedures do not require prior authorization and use those if they are appropriate.

Although these recommendations won’t resolve the situation of working with insurance providers, they may make the process a little easier.

Please contact us today with any of your medical legal needs!

Good Samaritan Laws and Medical Malpractice

Legally, a Good Samaritan refers to someone who renders aid to an injured person in an emergency on a voluntary basis.  That volunteer does owe the person they're rendering aid to a duty of being fairly cautious. Someone isn't required to offer first aid in most states, unless it is part of their job description, however if someone does not at least call for help, some states will consider it an act of negligence.

Good Samaritan laws apply to anyone who renders emergency care or first aid in the scene of an accident, injury or illness, or disaster. This includes EMS personnel, fire fighters, police officers, and even off-duty doctors. While the level of medical wisdom and skill will differ from person to person, the law extends its protection to anyone who falls under its umbrella.

These laws are crucial, since fear of legal repercussions could make many bystanders afraid of stepping in to help an injured or ill individual. For instance, someone is walking on a beach and sees a person in trouble while swimming in the ocean. The good Samaritan goes in and saves the swimmer, brings the unconscious individual to the beach and starts chest compressions, saving his life. Regrettably, during chest compressions, several of the casualties ribs were broken (a fairly common event).  Good Samaritan laws would prevent the victim from suing the rescuer, even though he sustained injuries.

There are a few circumstances where Good Samaritan laws to not apply. If a victim is conscious and verbalizes that they do not want help, their wishes must be respected even if it looks like aid is required. A bystander can help on the grounds of implied consent, if a victim is unconscious and cannot respond. Crises that occur in hospitals or other healthcare facilities, where care is offered by men and women during their routine employment (physicians, nurses, etc.) do not fall under Good Samaritan laws. 

Laws vary in each individual local and state region, so it is vital that you get familiar with the laws where you reside, work and possibly even vacation.

To find out more on medical malpractice and also the law, contact us today!

Medical Malpractice or Bad Service?

We have all had a bad experience in the doctor's office whether it's the forgotten prescription a rude secretary, or the harried appointment. Now, medicine appears to be increasingly impersonal and unfriendly, but what actually makes up malpractice?

Standard of Care
If the care received significantly differs from the standard of care which other providers in exactly the same specialty or scenario would offer then it may be malpractice. For this reason, medical malpractice cases require testimony from an expert witness who is able to define that standard of care.

Damages
We have a tendency to believe that lawsuits automatically create hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards. Nonetheless, a lawsuit is supposed to cover damages that have been incurred. If there were no damages from the medical malpractice, then there's little motive to file a lawsuit. Even if the physician's behavior is upsetting or unprofessional, unless there were damages incurred, there is no reason to sue. For example, if a doctor prescribes a medication that you think you're allergic to, but you endure no allergic reaction, there is no reason to sue.

Near Miss or Medical Malpractice
Medicine is not a cut and dry science of absolutes, it is also an art. One must demonstrate that malpractice occurred, not that it nearly occurred, for it to be malpractice. For instance, if your doctor prescribes the wrong medication but corrects it before you take the drug, then you are not the victim of malpractice.

Bad Service Can Become Malpractice
When lousy customer service endangers your well-being it might be considered malpractice.  A rude receptionist or a long wait time is only malpractice if it endangers your health. An ER physician that dismisses your symptoms of internal bleeding or fails to correctly diagnose or treat anaphylactic shock has probably committed malpractice. In addition, if a doctor fails to get informed consent that may also lead to a lawsuit.

Many other types of recourse exist if you have a bad experience with a health care professional. Word of mouth, complaint letters, and online reviews are very strong remedies. Ensure your criticisms are exact or else you could end up at the wrong end of a defamation lawsuit.

Contact us today with all your medical legal needs!

False Hope: Is It Malpractice?

How much would you want to be told by your doctor if you were diagnosed with a terminal disease? The communication of such a diagnosis, for example cancer, is one of the worst things any doctor has to cope with, but can giving false hope lead to malpractice?

Perhaps an ethical doctor should communicate the unembellished factual truth. This gives the patient time cross several things off their bucket list, to get their affairs in order, and go through the stages of grief. The patient's loved ones must also be advised so they can offer assistance and support to the dying individual.

Another theory contends that a dying patient shouldn't be told right away he or she is facing impending death. This may spare the patient a lengthy period of despair and anxiety. Moreover, she or he could be one of the small percentage of people who actually overcome the odds and survive their disease. This strategy has obvious downsides.

Oncologist, Dr. James Salwitz, relates the story of a cancer patient who'd not been told of the seriousness of her affliction. As her cancer spread, her first oncologist told her that she had nothing to worry about. However, by the time she saw Dr. Salwitz for a second opinion, she had only weeks to live. She was outraged that she had been kept in the dark and she believed she would have lived her life differently had she known she was dying. Her first oncologist justified his decision by saying that her last months would be hopeful and happy.

Another doctor, Stanislaw Burzynski, claims he can cure half of the cancer patients who get his treatment, which utilizes sodium-rich drugs taken directly from blood and urine, but now created synthetically. For $25,000 he will treat terminally ill cancer patients with this dubious drug. Some of his patients swear they were cured by the treatment, nevertheless the FDA has found no evidence that even one patient has been cured by it.

Is giving false hope considered malpractice? In the first case it could be, depending on the way the judge or jury see it. In the case of Dr Burzynski, if it is found that he's taking money from desperate people in exchange for an ineffective treatment, what he is doing would not only be medical malpractice, but also fraud.

For more information contact us. 

Clinicians Must Watch for Drug Abuse in Drugs That Should Not Have Abuse Potential

Medical professionals use immense care to prevent drug abuse, particularly when prescribing narcotics, such as opiods. These controlled substances are stringently regulated because of their exploitation potential. Often, nevertheless, those precautions are overlooked regarding medications that may be just as easily addictive and are more readily accessible. Doctors must be cognizant of the potential for exploitation of medicines which could not be as well known for their exploitation potential.

A muscle relaxant also known as Soma, carisoprodol, is one instance of a non-controlled drug that has a long history of abuse. Some states classify carisoprodal (accessible since 1959) as a controlled substance, yet, at the federal level, the drug avoided that classification until 2012. Precise figures on the degree of abuse of non-regulated medications aren't precise due to constraints in the way that data is reported and collected.

Other drugs that hold potential for abuse include antipsychotics, antidepressants, and some anticonvulsants. By combining these materials with other drugs, the abuse potential may be increased.

Over-the-counter medicines which have active pharmaceutical ingredients can also be abused. These medications, often cold medicines or cough syrups, are particularly susceptible to abuse since they are affordable and easy to obtain with no prescription. The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes that cold medicines introduce a high risk of exploitation because of ingredients that can create hallucinations or euphoria when taken in high quantities. Some abusers take the medications directly, but others take them in combination with other drugs or blend the substances with soda for flavor.

Doctors must know about the misuse and dependence potential of controlled substances. Nevertheless, an entire assessment of a patient's welfare must also include knowledge of the risks presented by non-controlled substances.

To learn more, contact us.

Two Crazy Cases Against Doctors

As a physician today, there's constantly worry about a potential medical malpractice litigation. Occasionally these medical malpractice suits are not warranted and some are just plain crazy because the harm came from the actions of the patient.

Medscape lately summarized a case against a cardiologist who lost a medical malpractice lawsuit because the family said he did not advise the patient not to take part in tasks that were stressful. The patient went to the cardiologist complaining of pain radiating into his arm. The cardiologists, noting the high risk of cardiovascular disease, ordered a nuclear stress test. Before the evaluation was done, the patient died of a coronary while engaging in a threesome with another man and a woman. Because there was no documentation that the man was warned by the cardiologist against stressful tasks, the jury found the doctor was 60% responsible for his death and that the patient was 40% responsible. The family was awarded $3 million, which was $2 million over the cardiologist's malpractice insurance.

An even more unusual case saw a man who was admitted to the ER complaining the effects of having inserted a bottle up his rectum. The attending physician gave the patient two alternatives: to have the bottle either manually or surgically removed. The patient decided to have the bottle manually removed. Sadly the removal did not go well and testing revealed signs of a colonic perforation. The bottle was then removed surgically.  The review board of California then severely sanctioned the ER doctor for gross negligence.

Certainly the cardiologist in the first case could have documented his advice and had the patient sign to make sure he understood. The ER doctor could have run the tests first before trying to pull the bottle sparing the patient a good deal of pain and herself a lot of professional damage. Both cases were a consequence of patients behaving poorly, the court and the review board found the doctors in question liable.

Tell us what you think?  Contact us today.

Pain Medication Addiction – Could it be Malpractice?

Could it be medical malpractice if a patient becomes addicted to narcotic painkillers that were prescribed to battle chronic back pain?  It all depends on the circumstances and requires the advice of a medical expert in the same field as the doctor being sued weighing in on the ‘standard of care’.

An example from an article in NOLO described a doctor who prescribed pain medication to a patient who had a heroin addiction.  Is it malpractice if the patient did not disclose this past addiction? Another example involves a physician who prescribed pain meds to a patient for post-operative back pain.  After five years, the severe back pain was still present and the patient was now addicted to the pain medication.  A case could be made that the doctor was negligent for not referring the patient to a pain management specialist for treatment with non-narcotic drugs.

Especially with the addition of meaningful use, physicians have very little time with patients and often have to prescribe pain medications without being able to ask every possible question about their history. 

Guidelines are in place that strictly require doctors to warn patients about the risks of addiction.  The question in a lawsuit would be whether the patient heeded the warnings and followed instructions, or was the physician negligent in giving proper warnings.

A medical malpractice lawsuit about pain medication involves proving negligence on the part of the doctor.  However, could lawsuits like these do more harm than good since doctors might be more reluctant to provide pain medications for fear of lawsuits even if those medications are necessary? 

What is your opinion?

How much can you trust medical advice on television?

Medical advice seems to be all over --talk shows on the internet, radio, as well as television are touting advice, nutrition, or the greatest medical practices or pharmaceuticals. Mass media is a powerful tool for wellness product promoters and health advocates to get their message out. How can you differentiate between actual medical advice and marketing? What divides a doctor from a salesperson is a thin buffer formed by the "Hippocratic Oath".  People must be careful -- if it seems too good to be true, it likely is. For example, should you hear of some supplement or intervention that can "prevent" conditions like Alzheimer's or heart disease, be quite wary and consult your doctor.


Two quite popular mainstream television medical shows have become the focus of some critical attention. The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors, are both hosted by medical professionals that are highly trained. A recent fact-checking study published in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) examined 40 episodes of each of the two shows and made some substantive criticisms of the advice given on air.

The study found that only 46% of the recommendations given on The Dr. Oz Show were supported by any substantial evidence. In 39% of Dr. Oz recommendations, no evidence was found, and the recommendations were contradicted by evidence 15% of the time.

The Doctors were a little better with 63% of recommendations having evidence to support them. No evidence was found in 24% of the recommendations, and evidence contradicted 19% of the recommendations.

In conclusion, the study states that recommendations made on medical talk shows frequently don’t have enough information on advantages or the extent of benefits. Nearly half of the recommendations have no support by evidence or are contradicted by evidence. Additionally, potential conflicts of interest are seldom addressed. The public should be skeptical about claims made on these kinds of shows and consistently discuss questions with your physician.

MediPro Solutions cares about the accuracy of medical advice and is owned and run by physicians.  If you have any questions, contact us!

What “Dr. Google” Means for Patients and Practicing Physicians

Many people turn to the web for health care advice, but how much of that information is accurate? Google computed that one out of every 20 Google searches is for health related tips. Google is attempting to improve the quality of that information, by establishing "Knowledge Graph".
Some doctors are not sold, fearing that patients will be overwhelmed by this new offering with information that will not be easily understood, and could lead more people to self-diagnosis and maybe even panic. Other worries include whether Google will be able to discriminate evidence-based information from advice based on speculation or conjecture. Not all professionals are against Google's plans, however. Some think that patients having more access to information can help them find innovative treatments that may subsequently be discussed with their physician. As patients become more informed regarding their conditions, it can make their doctors appointments more productive and result in a more favorable healthcare experience. That is Google's target too, saying that the search results aren't meant to be medical advice, only for informational purposes and they encourage people to seek professional medical advice if they have a health dilemma.

What do you think?  We’d love to hear your thoughts!

Doctors Must be Cautious with Social Media

Social media is being used in a variety of occupations including medicine. Some physicians feel that social-media can be a practical and available way to share data with clients. These communications must be used with caution and professionalism. The American Medical Association adopted a social networking policy in 2010. Guidelines encourage doctors to:

• Set privacy settings to the highest degree that is possible and check their Net presence to make sure that both personal and professional information posted about them is correct and appropriate
• Maintain patient-doctor boundaries
• Consider separate online presence for personal and professional use
• Realize that online postings and material might have an adverse impact on reputation and could bring about professional consequences

A study from the University of California, Bay Area, found several activities were considered more prone to bring about inquiry by state medical boards. Quoting inaccurate data was rated as number one, followed by misrepresenting professional credibility, using patient photos without consent, and inappropriately contacting patients. Ongoing education regarding likely effects of social media is essential to ensure proper and professional use. Although social networking can be an excellent tool for doctor patient communication, it must be used responsibly.

To learn more about social-media guidelines in medicine, contact us!