Hacker News Reader

Comment by phren0logy | Hacker News Reader

I am a physician, and I teach in a medical school. Although they are 2% of total costs, they drive up the cost in unnecessary procedures that patients demand without medical indication. Those $1080 MRIs are often ordered to avoid a lawsuit. That adds up to a lot more than 2%.

View on HN

I'm a doc based in the UK. I know that we order fewer useless investigations than you do in the US. Thankfully we don't have a litigation heavy medical culture yet. Although, I think it's slowly heading that way.

My dad is a surgeon, so that's my appeal to authority and anecdote. In my country litigation isn't a problem, but unnecessary treatment is. People go doctor shopping to find one that gives them the treatment they want. Same problem, different cause.

You aren't French are you? I seem to remember that being considered a big issue with the French medical care system.

As I understand it now, doctors have largely invested in testing companies. When they (not all doctors obviously) - I probably thinking primary doctors - order tests the test is a money maker for the doctor.

Wouldn't a calculation of the effect of litigation include the scenario you mentioned? Otherwise it would seem to be a bad calculation. Do you have any studies that show how often a test is ordered simply to avoid a lawsuit?

Even if many testing companies are owned by doctors, the overwhelming majority have no stake in one.

Citations re: excess testing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15928282 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10136689

I only read the abstracts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but both of those links fail to compare the US with other countries. I.e they don't show that costs in America are higher than other countries due to defensive medicine. It could be that all countries have higher costs due to defensive medicine, we wouldn't know from these studies.

The second link hardly endorses your view. It says

Although our estimates delineate a wide range of potential savings, systemwide savings from aggressive malpractice reform could approach $41 billion over five years.

According to one source [1] the U.S. spent $2.6 trillion in health care in 2010. An $8 - $9 billion dollar savings per year from eliminating defensive medicine hardly adds up to "a lot more than 2%".

[1] http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/...

I agree that the second link is saying more about the effects from malpractice reform. I have seen the Kaiser study, and what I think they are not taking into account is the culture of defensive medicine that may physicians don't even think about. For example, an MRI is more likely in a US Emergency Room than in a UK Emergency Room. UK practice is (in general) evidence based, and they won't order it unless it makes sense to do so. May US physicians would not identify this as "defensive" because the practice is so widespread, although the root reason for ordering it stems from that cause. I am not aware of an analysis that takes this into account.

Yeah but 2% of a very high cost is higher than it would be if the cost is lower (obviously). Of course you won't cut the costs much by targeting those 2% at first, but if you ever get to reasonable prices those 2% would transform in 7% and 7% is starting to be notable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com