If "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," then certainly this comes in a close second:
At issue is the reluctance of our Lawyer-in-Chief and his colleagues on The Hill to even consider looking at tort reform as one means towards reining in health care costs. Absent such change, it's unlikely that physicians will voluntarily ease up on ordering batteries of perhaps extraneous tests and procedures, for fear of being called out for malpractice. Can't say I blame them.
I'm not aware of anyone arguing that tort reform, in and of itself, will solve all the problems of increasing health care costs. Rather, it's touted as one important factor, and a relatively easy and inexpensive way to help reduce them.
Dr. Rafal, a New York City radiologist, graciously volunteers to lead the charge, and offers some pretty useful ideas:
■ "Legal "DRGs." Each potential legal situation will be assigned a relative value, and charges limited to this amount." Just as medical procedures are assigned special codes which dictate reimbursement levels, Dr Rafal envisions each legal maneuver as having a particular value, and sees them reimbursed accordingly.
■ "Ration legal care." One of the features/bugs (depending on one's perspective) of ObamaCare is the idea of rationing health services. Why not extend that concept to legal services, as well?
(and my favorite:)
■ The "Lawyer Reduction Act (HR -3200)" This legislation would immediately - and arbitrarily - remove 3200 lawyers from practicing law. Oh, that's 3200 lawyers per year [ed: insert favorite lawyer joke here].
Not a bad start.
[Hat Tip: Lucianne.com]
Posts
