Could malpractice reform save the US healthcare system?
It's a scenario most people have considered at least once. Patient A is hoisted onto Dr. B's operating table. Knife slips and causes massive injury -- and unlimited pain and suffering -- to Mr. A. Should the resulting monetary compensation be unlimited, as well? Or should monetary damages be capped to help doctors feel more comfortable in high-stakes situations, leading to better patient outcomes and possibly helping to keep America's ever-rising health care costs in check? The debate's been raging for decades, and while it's shown no signs of letting up in recent years, some say the current atmosphere of change in the health care system makes the time ripe for compromise.
- As Medicare Advantage Cuts Loom, Disagreement Over Program's Stability
- 3 Management Lessons from a Supermarket Debacle
- Medicare Advantage Carriers See 'No Choice' But to Accept Cuts
- Physicians to Appeal 'Docs v. Glocks' Ruling in FL
- CA Fines 8 Hospitals for Medical Errors
- Centralizing the Revenue Cycle Protects the Bottom Line
- Revenue Cycles Get a Boost from Simple JPEG Files
- IOM Identifies GME Problems, Calls for Finance Changes
- Employers Weigh Risks, Benefits of Private Exchanges
- Doctors Feel Pressure to Accept Risk-based Reimbursement