Reform Medicaid to maintain access:
Re the April 21st letter http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/20/2177745/reform-medicaid-to-maintain-access.html by Michael Garner, President and CEO,Florida Association of Health Plans. Mr. Garner claims that for-profit managed care companies will contain Florida's rising Medicaid costs by care coordination and quality improvement.
But a recently published study of the managed care pilot program taking place in Broward, Baker, Clay, Duval and Nassau counties concluded that there is insufficient evidence to verify claims of cost savings. The study concludes that instead of rushing to implement this unproven and ill-advised pilot program statewide, more reliable cost-saving alternatives should be considered. For example, Massachusetts is trying to contain rising health care costs by supporting the development of accountable care organizations (ACO's). These are networks of physicians, practices and hospitals that will share in any cost savings they generate by better coordinating and integrating patient care without adding unnecessary administrative overhead generated by managed-care companies. Geisinger Health Systems in Pennsylvania is using its networks to try out a model similar to patient-centered medical homes and high-risk care management programs. Sutter Health in California has focused on engaging its doctors on quality and efficiency programs. Before we turn over billions of dollars to private for-profit managed care companies we should seriously explore other methods and modalities to contain health care cost, improve the quality of care and to maintain access to medical services for all of those in need.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Board Certified Family Physician & Addiction Specialist
16899 NE 15th Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Phone: (305) 940-8717
E-mail: info@miamihealth.com
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Valentine's Day controversy
It's Time For An Attitude Adjustment
According to a recent New York Times article the president-elect of the American College of Surgeons resigned his position Sunday after weeks of controversy surrounding a Valentine’s Day editorial he wrote touting the mood-enhancing effects of semen on women during unprotected sex. Dr. Greenfield, 78, was the editor in chief of Surgery News when the editorial was published but resigned that position in the wake of the controversy; the entire issue of the newspaper was withdrawn. He is an emeritus professor of surgery at the University of Michigan School of Medicine. The editorial cited research that found that female college students who had had unprotected sex were less depressed than those whose partners used condoms. It speculated that compounds in semen have antidepressant effects.
Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University, submitted a letter of resignation from the surgery association during the controversy and said Sunday that she had no intention of reversing herself now that Dr. Greenfield has resigned. “The editorial was just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Dr. Brophy said. “The way the college is set up right now is for the sake of the leadership instead of patients.”
I hope that members of our profession distance themselves from those who still believe that their professional status renders them immune to public criticism. The change of attitudes within our profession must progress by large jumps instead of small increments.
Yours
Bernd
According to a recent New York Times article the president-elect of the American College of Surgeons resigned his position Sunday after weeks of controversy surrounding a Valentine’s Day editorial he wrote touting the mood-enhancing effects of semen on women during unprotected sex. Dr. Greenfield, 78, was the editor in chief of Surgery News when the editorial was published but resigned that position in the wake of the controversy; the entire issue of the newspaper was withdrawn. He is an emeritus professor of surgery at the University of Michigan School of Medicine. The editorial cited research that found that female college students who had had unprotected sex were less depressed than those whose partners used condoms. It speculated that compounds in semen have antidepressant effects.
Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University, submitted a letter of resignation from the surgery association during the controversy and said Sunday that she had no intention of reversing herself now that Dr. Greenfield has resigned. “The editorial was just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Dr. Brophy said. “The way the college is set up right now is for the sake of the leadership instead of patients.”
I hope that members of our profession distance themselves from those who still believe that their professional status renders them immune to public criticism. The change of attitudes within our profession must progress by large jumps instead of small increments.
Yours
Bernd
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Controlled Substances
In an interesting article entitled “US Seeks To Rein in Painkillers” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/health/20painkiller.html the authors report that the Obama administration seeks legislation requiring doctors to undergo training before being permitted to prescribe powerful painkillers like OxyContin. This appears to be the most aggressive step taken by federal officials to control both the use and abuse of the drugs. Among the drugs that would most probably fall under a stricter licensing measure are OxyContin, fentanyl, hydromorphone and methadone. They are considered critical to pain treatment. But they also have been associated in recent years with a national epidemic of prescription drug abuse and addiction and thousands of overdose-related deaths. Proponents of the training argue that it would help doctors better identify patients who would benefit from treatment with long-acting narcotics, and help them unmask patients feigning pain to get drugs they then abuse. Opponents say a training requirement will reduce the number of doctors prescribing pain drugs and hamper patient care. The F.D.A. released new regulations on Tuesday that would require the makers of long-acting or extended release painkillers to provide training to doctors but would not require doctors to take such courses. This proposal is similar to the one rejected as too weak in last year’s debate. Dr. Janet Woodcock, who heads the F.D.A. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, indicated that the new agency rules were effectively a placeholder until legislation was passed or were to be used if a relevant bill failed.
In my opinion additional education and training requirements for controlled substances prescribing are long overdue! Most physicians have no, or very limited knowledge, of the appropriate indication, pharmacology and adverse drug interactions of controlled substances. I often see patients who were prescribed Methadone, a long-acting opioid, at a four-times daily dosage schedule. These physicians seem to be clueless about the fact that Methadone metabolism rates vary greatly between individuals, up to a factor of 100! These metabolism rates can range from as few as 4 hours to as many as 130 hours, or even 190 hours. This variability is apparently due to genetic variability in the production of the associated enzymes. Ignoring these pharmacological facts can lead to accidental overdose and death.
Additional training requirements should be implemented to protect our patients and our families.
Yours
Bernd
In my opinion additional education and training requirements for controlled substances prescribing are long overdue! Most physicians have no, or very limited knowledge, of the appropriate indication, pharmacology and adverse drug interactions of controlled substances. I often see patients who were prescribed Methadone, a long-acting opioid, at a four-times daily dosage schedule. These physicians seem to be clueless about the fact that Methadone metabolism rates vary greatly between individuals, up to a factor of 100! These metabolism rates can range from as few as 4 hours to as many as 130 hours, or even 190 hours. This variability is apparently due to genetic variability in the production of the associated enzymes. Ignoring these pharmacological facts can lead to accidental overdose and death.
Additional training requirements should be implemented to protect our patients and our families.
Yours
Bernd
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Fla. House panel OKs compromise pill mill bill
Finally, the future for a prescription drug monitoring program is looking better every day. According to an April 12th Miami Herald article http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/12/2163473/fla-house-panel-oks-compromise.html compromise legislation designed to combat "pill mills" that supply prescription painkillers to drug dealers and addicts cleared a House committee Tuesday after the panel took out Gov. Rick Scott's proposal to repeal Florida's prescription monitoring system. The revised bill (HB 7095) instead would strengthen the database by giving pharmacies only seven days rather than 15 to submit prescription information to the state. Unchanged from the original legislation is a ban on dispensing controlled drugs by most doctors. That means patients would have to get prescriptions filled only at pharmacies. Doctors who violate the ban would face up to five years in prison. The House Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the revised bill. It next goes to the House floor. House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, also pushed for the database repeal, arguing that a ban on dispensing by doctors would be more effective, but Bondi said he's also supporting the compromise and helped bring it about. Bondi and Senate President Mike Haridpolos, R-Merritt Island, have been strong supporters of the tracking system, and the Senate's pill mill bill (SB 818) did not include the repeal.
I urge you to continue pushing your legislators to support the House ( HB7095) and Senate bill (SB818).
The battle is not over yet !!
Yours
I urge you to continue pushing your legislators to support the House ( HB7095) and Senate bill (SB818).
The battle is not over yet !!
Yours
Friday, April 08, 2011
Florida Medicaid Reform
Friday, April 8th 2011
Letter To The Editor:
Managed Care is not the solution to rising Medicaid cost:
David Pollacks's letter to the editor suggests that moving Medicaid beneficiaries into managed care is the most effective solution to Florida’s Medicaid woes because managed-care organizations in Florida and across the country have a track record of improving outcomes while reducing costs. But is that true? A Georgetown University Health Policy Institute study of Florida's Medicaid Managed Care pilot program questions the use of for-profit managed care companies to reduce Medicaid costs.
The Georgetown study analyzed the impact of the pilot program taking place in Broward, Baker, Clay, Duval and Nassau counties. The study concluded that there is insufficient evidence to verify claims of cost savings and also raises questions about patient access to medical care, particularly turnover among private plans that disrupts the patient-provider relationships. The study finds that some companies hoping to profit from providing Medicaid managed care services have not achieved the success they envisioned and sometimes choose to leave the program with little notice, causing a disruption for patients. In terms of managed care costs savings, the Georgetown study found "insufficient data available to draw conclusions," adding that reductions in expenditures may actually be due, in part, to patients being denied care. Furthermore, no encounter data, and no up to date data on cost savings are available to substantiate the claims made by proponents of the Medicaid HMO plans. Encounter data measures what services and medications patients are receiving and which ones are being denied - accountability that health advocates say is critical to ensure for-profit HMOs aren't lining their pockets at patients' expense.
The study concludes that instead of rushing to implement this unproven and ill-advised pilot program statewide, more reliable cost-saving alternatives should be considered such as such raising the generic prescription drug dispensing rates and pushing for adherence programs that produce better health outcomes.
So why do we want to turn over billions of dollars to private for-profit managed care companies?
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Board Certified Family Physician & Addiction Specialist
16899 NE 15th Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Phone: (305) 940-8717
E-mail: info@miamihealth.com
Letter To The Editor:
Managed Care is not the solution to rising Medicaid cost:
David Pollacks's letter to the editor suggests that moving Medicaid beneficiaries into managed care is the most effective solution to Florida’s Medicaid woes because managed-care organizations in Florida and across the country have a track record of improving outcomes while reducing costs. But is that true? A Georgetown University Health Policy Institute study of Florida's Medicaid Managed Care pilot program questions the use of for-profit managed care companies to reduce Medicaid costs.
The Georgetown study analyzed the impact of the pilot program taking place in Broward, Baker, Clay, Duval and Nassau counties. The study concluded that there is insufficient evidence to verify claims of cost savings and also raises questions about patient access to medical care, particularly turnover among private plans that disrupts the patient-provider relationships. The study finds that some companies hoping to profit from providing Medicaid managed care services have not achieved the success they envisioned and sometimes choose to leave the program with little notice, causing a disruption for patients. In terms of managed care costs savings, the Georgetown study found "insufficient data available to draw conclusions," adding that reductions in expenditures may actually be due, in part, to patients being denied care. Furthermore, no encounter data, and no up to date data on cost savings are available to substantiate the claims made by proponents of the Medicaid HMO plans. Encounter data measures what services and medications patients are receiving and which ones are being denied - accountability that health advocates say is critical to ensure for-profit HMOs aren't lining their pockets at patients' expense.
The study concludes that instead of rushing to implement this unproven and ill-advised pilot program statewide, more reliable cost-saving alternatives should be considered such as such raising the generic prescription drug dispensing rates and pushing for adherence programs that produce better health outcomes.
So why do we want to turn over billions of dollars to private for-profit managed care companies?
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Board Certified Family Physician & Addiction Specialist
16899 NE 15th Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Phone: (305) 940-8717
E-mail: info@miamihealth.com
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Governor Scott and Mandatory Drug Testing
Governor Scott and Mandatory Drug Testing:
A recent article published in the Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/27/v-fullstory/2137314/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-order.html reports that Governor Scott signed an executive order last week that requires drug testing for many current state workers and job applicants. According to the article “Scott’s order applies to all employees and prospective hires in agencies that answer to the governor, and could affect as many as 100,000 people. Scott also supports a state Senate bill that requires all cash-assistance welfare recipients over the age of 18 to pay for and receive a drug test, a policy that could affect about 58,000 people.”
But is this executive order legal?
* In April 2000 U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ruled that governments cannot require prospective employees to take drug tests unless there is a “special need,’’ such as safety. Ryskamp’s ruling led other South Florida cities, such as Pembroke Pines, to abandon their policy of drug testing all job applicants.
* Random drug-testing of current government workers also has been limited to those in jobs that affect public safety and to cases where a reasonable suspicion of abuse exists, according to a December 2004 federal court ruling in a case that involved Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice. In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the DJJ violated the Fourth Amendment in ordering random drug-testing of all the agency’s 5,000-plus employees.
* State agencies already are allowed, but not required, to screen job applicants for drugs, under the Florida Drug-Free Workplaces Act. The law allows state agencies to test employees if there is a reasonable suspicion that workers are on drugs. But that suspicion must be well-documented and employees must be informed of the policy prior to testing.
* Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said Scott is taking a “simplistic” approach to the law, pitting the public’s expectation of a “right to know” against each individual state worker’s right to privacy.
The article concludes that though no legal challenge to the governor’s order has been filed, one will be forthcoming.
I urge all of you to support the ACLU of Florida in their efforts to fight back against government intrusion into our lives camouflaged in the shroud of transparency.
Yours
Bernd
A recent article published in the Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/27/v-fullstory/2137314/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-order.html reports that Governor Scott signed an executive order last week that requires drug testing for many current state workers and job applicants. According to the article “Scott’s order applies to all employees and prospective hires in agencies that answer to the governor, and could affect as many as 100,000 people. Scott also supports a state Senate bill that requires all cash-assistance welfare recipients over the age of 18 to pay for and receive a drug test, a policy that could affect about 58,000 people.”
But is this executive order legal?
* In April 2000 U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ruled that governments cannot require prospective employees to take drug tests unless there is a “special need,’’ such as safety. Ryskamp’s ruling led other South Florida cities, such as Pembroke Pines, to abandon their policy of drug testing all job applicants.
* Random drug-testing of current government workers also has been limited to those in jobs that affect public safety and to cases where a reasonable suspicion of abuse exists, according to a December 2004 federal court ruling in a case that involved Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice. In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the DJJ violated the Fourth Amendment in ordering random drug-testing of all the agency’s 5,000-plus employees.
* State agencies already are allowed, but not required, to screen job applicants for drugs, under the Florida Drug-Free Workplaces Act. The law allows state agencies to test employees if there is a reasonable suspicion that workers are on drugs. But that suspicion must be well-documented and employees must be informed of the policy prior to testing.
* Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said Scott is taking a “simplistic” approach to the law, pitting the public’s expectation of a “right to know” against each individual state worker’s right to privacy.
The article concludes that though no legal challenge to the governor’s order has been filed, one will be forthcoming.
I urge all of you to support the ACLU of Florida in their efforts to fight back against government intrusion into our lives camouflaged in the shroud of transparency.
Yours
Bernd
Friday, April 01, 2011
Malpractice Reform
Attached you find a very interesting and thoughtful article regarding professional liability reform. In last month’s budget proposal, the Obama administration offered a solution: a plan to encourage evidence-based medicine by limiting the professional liability of doctors who adhere to clinical practice guidelines.
The author points out that the proposal will not achieve the noble goal of providing quality care at a reasonable cost because the current guidelines, written by nonprofit medical groups and for-profit insurance companies, are not good enough.
The author then suggests that "instead of nonprofit groups producing free guidelines, or insurance companies producing ones that serve their own interests, the government should require health care providers to buy or license guidelines from what I call private regulators, for-profit companies with expertise in evidence-based medicine. Doctors would have immunity from malpractice cases if they followed the guidelines. However, the private regulators themselves would be liable if their guidelines were found to deviate from optimal care."
Unfortunately, the malpractice reform debate is often reduced to a ONE SOLUTION ONLY issue: cap non-economic damages.
The proponents of those caps often forget that the non-economic damages among those patients who were harmed can often never be properly assessed. Non-economic damages, or quality-of-life damages,compensate injuries and losses that are not easily quantified by a dollar amount and are difficult to measure.
Therefore, we should pursue other solutions such as the application of evidence - and standards-based care to protect patients and our families who may fall victims to malpractice.
Yours
Bernd
March 28, 2011
A Market Solution for Malpractice
By RONEN AVRAHAM
Austin, Tex.
IT’S been a year since health care reform was signed into law, and since then both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to address one item it left out: medical malpractice reform. In last month’s budget proposal, the Obama administration offered a solution: a plan to encourage evidence-based medicine by limiting the malpractice liability of doctors who follow clinical practice guidelines — in effect, granting them immunity.
Doctors love this proposal, and patients should too: When doctors follow good guidelines they are less likely to order too many or too few tests or to prescribe the wrong treatment.
Unfortunately, the proposal will not achieve the noble goal of providing quality care at a reasonable cost because the current guidelines, written by nonprofit medical groups and for-profit insurance companies, are not good enough.
First, they often conflict with one another. Recommendations for when and how frequently to give women mammograms, for instance, notoriously vary depending on which group is giving them.
In addition, there are conflicts of interest. Guidelines produced by insurance companies sometimes put their interests first. Malpractice insurers, for example, may recommend yearly mammograms, even if they are not necessary, because they bear the costs of lawsuits for late diagnoses of breast cancer — and not the costs or health risks of the extra mammograms. Moreover, the nonprofit groups behind many other guidelines have traditionally depended on pharmaceutical and medical device companies to finance their work. Last year, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies issued a new code of conduct seeking to stop these industries from sponsoring the development of guidelines, but there are still too many loopholes, and thousands of guidelines produced before the reform are still in circulation.
Most troubling of all is that the groups behind the guidelines bear no liability for producing bad ones. No matter how poor the care they prescribe, it is the doctors who depend on them who are punished.
Mr. Obama’s proposal to limit the liability of doctors who follow these flawed guidelines (included in a $250-million plan for overhauling states’ malpractice systems) is clearly not the way to better care. Immunity is a good idea. It’s just that we need to create the incentives necessary for the production of optimal guidelines first.
This is no secret — last week the Institute of Medicine put out a report listing new standards for promulgating guidelines. I was a consultant on the report, which goes a long way toward improving the system, but I worry about the extent to which these standards will be followed. I have a different proposal for improving the guidelines:
Instead of nonprofit groups producing free guidelines, or insurance companies producing ones that serve their own interests, the government should require health care providers to buy or license guidelines from what I call private regulators, for-profit companies with expertise in evidence-based medicine. Doctors would have immunity from malpractice cases if they followed the guidelines. However, the private regulators themselves would be liable if their guidelines were found to deviate from optimal care.
The profit-seeking forces of the market on the one hand and legal accountability on the other would help private regulators strike the right balance between patient safety and cost of care. Private regulators would discourage the overuse of expensive medical procedures because doctors, under pressure from insurance companies to keep costs low, would be unlikely to invest in guidelines recommending unnecessary procedures. But if the guideline-makers failed to recommend an appropriate procedure, they’d be held responsible for the patient’s health.
Just as they can now, doctors could deviate from the guidelines when required. Their discretion and autonomy would be preserved. But in most cases, when guidelines apply, doctors could follow them without having to worry about being held liable, and more important, about getting bad advice.
Such a system may not be too far off: medicine is already moving toward for-profit guidelines. UpToDate, First Consult and eMedicine are just a few new databases compiled by for-profit companies in the business of making technical, evidence-based medicine more accessible to doctors. This is certainly exciting, but to provide doctors with the peace of mind they deserve, these companies need to be held accountable for the advice they give.
Almost every other product Americans encounter is subject to laws that guarantee that the producer suffers when its product is subpar. There’s no reason medical guidelines should be any different. With the proper incentives, these private regulators could help President Obama carry out the health care reform he signed into law a year ago.
Ronen Avraham is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
The author points out that the proposal will not achieve the noble goal of providing quality care at a reasonable cost because the current guidelines, written by nonprofit medical groups and for-profit insurance companies, are not good enough.
The author then suggests that "instead of nonprofit groups producing free guidelines, or insurance companies producing ones that serve their own interests, the government should require health care providers to buy or license guidelines from what I call private regulators, for-profit companies with expertise in evidence-based medicine. Doctors would have immunity from malpractice cases if they followed the guidelines. However, the private regulators themselves would be liable if their guidelines were found to deviate from optimal care."
Unfortunately, the malpractice reform debate is often reduced to a ONE SOLUTION ONLY issue: cap non-economic damages.
The proponents of those caps often forget that the non-economic damages among those patients who were harmed can often never be properly assessed. Non-economic damages, or quality-of-life damages,compensate injuries and losses that are not easily quantified by a dollar amount and are difficult to measure.
Therefore, we should pursue other solutions such as the application of evidence - and standards-based care to protect patients and our families who may fall victims to malpractice.
Yours
Bernd
March 28, 2011
A Market Solution for Malpractice
By RONEN AVRAHAM
Austin, Tex.
IT’S been a year since health care reform was signed into law, and since then both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to address one item it left out: medical malpractice reform. In last month’s budget proposal, the Obama administration offered a solution: a plan to encourage evidence-based medicine by limiting the malpractice liability of doctors who follow clinical practice guidelines — in effect, granting them immunity.
Doctors love this proposal, and patients should too: When doctors follow good guidelines they are less likely to order too many or too few tests or to prescribe the wrong treatment.
Unfortunately, the proposal will not achieve the noble goal of providing quality care at a reasonable cost because the current guidelines, written by nonprofit medical groups and for-profit insurance companies, are not good enough.
First, they often conflict with one another. Recommendations for when and how frequently to give women mammograms, for instance, notoriously vary depending on which group is giving them.
In addition, there are conflicts of interest. Guidelines produced by insurance companies sometimes put their interests first. Malpractice insurers, for example, may recommend yearly mammograms, even if they are not necessary, because they bear the costs of lawsuits for late diagnoses of breast cancer — and not the costs or health risks of the extra mammograms. Moreover, the nonprofit groups behind many other guidelines have traditionally depended on pharmaceutical and medical device companies to finance their work. Last year, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies issued a new code of conduct seeking to stop these industries from sponsoring the development of guidelines, but there are still too many loopholes, and thousands of guidelines produced before the reform are still in circulation.
Most troubling of all is that the groups behind the guidelines bear no liability for producing bad ones. No matter how poor the care they prescribe, it is the doctors who depend on them who are punished.
Mr. Obama’s proposal to limit the liability of doctors who follow these flawed guidelines (included in a $250-million plan for overhauling states’ malpractice systems) is clearly not the way to better care. Immunity is a good idea. It’s just that we need to create the incentives necessary for the production of optimal guidelines first.
This is no secret — last week the Institute of Medicine put out a report listing new standards for promulgating guidelines. I was a consultant on the report, which goes a long way toward improving the system, but I worry about the extent to which these standards will be followed. I have a different proposal for improving the guidelines:
Instead of nonprofit groups producing free guidelines, or insurance companies producing ones that serve their own interests, the government should require health care providers to buy or license guidelines from what I call private regulators, for-profit companies with expertise in evidence-based medicine. Doctors would have immunity from malpractice cases if they followed the guidelines. However, the private regulators themselves would be liable if their guidelines were found to deviate from optimal care.
The profit-seeking forces of the market on the one hand and legal accountability on the other would help private regulators strike the right balance between patient safety and cost of care. Private regulators would discourage the overuse of expensive medical procedures because doctors, under pressure from insurance companies to keep costs low, would be unlikely to invest in guidelines recommending unnecessary procedures. But if the guideline-makers failed to recommend an appropriate procedure, they’d be held responsible for the patient’s health.
Just as they can now, doctors could deviate from the guidelines when required. Their discretion and autonomy would be preserved. But in most cases, when guidelines apply, doctors could follow them without having to worry about being held liable, and more important, about getting bad advice.
Such a system may not be too far off: medicine is already moving toward for-profit guidelines. UpToDate, First Consult and eMedicine are just a few new databases compiled by for-profit companies in the business of making technical, evidence-based medicine more accessible to doctors. This is certainly exciting, but to provide doctors with the peace of mind they deserve, these companies need to be held accountable for the advice they give.
Almost every other product Americans encounter is subject to laws that guarantee that the producer suffers when its product is subpar. There’s no reason medical guidelines should be any different. With the proper incentives, these private regulators could help President Obama carry out the health care reform he signed into law a year ago.
Ronen Avraham is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)