3 ms·

The biggest expense to doctors is the cost of getting sued all the time and the insurance doctors need to cover that.

by um_ya 8y ago

spamizbad 8y ago
Costs associated with medical malpractice account for just 2.4% of healthcare spending in the United States. Source: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/medical-liability-costs-us/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/medical-liabili...
- slg 8y ago
  That isn't addressing um_ya's point because doctors are just a part of the overall healthcare industry but bear the brunt of the malpractice costs. This is just one small piece of a broken healthcare system, but how we handle malpractice in this country is certainly broken. Fixing it wouldn't resolve all our problems, but it would definitely help.
  - spamizbad 8y ago
    I don't think it's broken at all. Tort law, in general, is what we use as an alternative to more aggressive regulation. You remove tort options, the side-effect will just be more regulatory measures.
    - slg 8y ago
      Imagine a world in which a software developer was held personally liable for any work they did. First off, this would kill of a huge part of the open source community (the free as in beer software would all disappear). Employee contracts might be structured in such a way that the employee is responsible for any potential liability. Any customer who felt wronged could sue the individual developer who wrote that code. These lawsuits would then be decided by a jury of people who know nothing about software development. One of the biggest deciding factors in that case would be who could hire the best lawyers and which lawyers could bring in the best "software experts" to explain why the developer did or did not make a mistake. Even if it was ruled that the developer did not make a mistake, they would be unlikely to ever be able to recoup their legal costs. Meanwhile the payouts from the cases in the customer's favor are so large, people are now incentivized to sue over a much wider range of possible mistakes. These developers just need to accept that these lawsuits and the wasted time and stress that results from them is simply a part of their profession. Regardless of a developers skill, a majority of developers now won't be able to make it through a career without being sued at least once. Eventually the software developers turn to insurance which costs tens of thousands of dollars per year to protect them against these risks. Would you think this is a fair system? Could you see that system having a negative effect on the software industry? Do you think this would push people out of the industry who might otherwise be great developers? Would this system, that is ostensibly designed to protect customers, actually result in a better level of service?
      - gameswithgo 8y ago
        We do live in a world where you can be sued for negligence in software or anything else.
      - spamizbad 8y ago
        > Imagine a world in which a software developer was held personally liable for any work they did. We already live in this world, it’s just that most software had zero impact on the wellbeing of individuals and/or its mostly licensed as-is. Software with actual guarantees behind it tends to be very expensive. Their users have tort recourse. Also major software companies get sued and settle on a fairy regular basis.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        slg 8y ago
        >most software had zero impact on the wellbeing of individuals I agree with the "most" designation, but there is still plenty of software that does have a direct impact. >or its mostly licensed as-is. Which is exactly my point. Most software comes with an agreement that limits the liability for the company or person who created or sold the software. Developers are able to hand waive away that legal liability in ways that other professions, specifically in the industry, are not able to. >Software with actual guarantees behind it tends to be very expensive. Their users have tort recourse. But that is dictated by the contract which sets standard that is above the legal bare minimum. The legal minimum is much higher for doctors. >Also major software companies get sued and settle on a fairy regular basis. I will admit my analogy isn't perfect because of the relatively high number of private practice doctors compared with the relatively lower number of smaller ISV developers. Doctors as a whole have a much higher exposure than software developers as a whole. That is why I noted that contracts might change if software malpractice cases really became a thing.

The biggest expense to doctors is the cost of getting sued all the time and the insurance doctors need to cover that.

by um_ya 8y ago

The biggest expense to doctors is the cost of getting sued all the time and the insurance doctors need to cover that.

Costs associated with medical malpractice account for just 2.4% of healthcare spending in the United States. Source: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/medical-liability-costs-us/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/medical-liabili...

slg 8y ago
That isn't addressing um_ya's point because doctors are just a part of the overall healthcare industry but bear the brunt of the malpractice costs. This is just one small piece of a broken healthcare system, but how we handle malpractice in this country is certainly broken. Fixing it wouldn't resolve all our problems, but it would definitely help.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  I don't think it's broken at all. Tort law, in general, is what we use as an alternative to more aggressive regulation. You remove tort options, the side-effect will just be more regulatory measures.
  - slg 8y ago
    Imagine a world in which a software developer was held personally liable for any work they did. First off, this would kill of a huge part of the open source community (the free as in beer software would all disappear). Employee contracts might be structured in such a way that the employee is responsible for any potential liability. Any customer who felt wronged could sue the individual developer who wrote that code. These lawsuits would then be decided by a jury of people who know nothing about software development. One of the biggest deciding factors in that case would be who could hire the best lawyers and which lawyers could bring in the best "software experts" to explain why the developer did or did not make a mistake. Even if it was ruled that the developer did not make a mistake, they would be unlikely to ever be able to recoup their legal costs. Meanwhile the payouts from the cases in the customer's favor are so large, people are now incentivized to sue over a much wider range of possible mistakes. These developers just need to accept that these lawsuits and the wasted time and stress that results from them is simply a part of their profession. Regardless of a developers skill, a majority of developers now won't be able to make it through a career without being sued at least once. Eventually the software developers turn to insurance which costs tens of thousands of dollars per year to protect them against these risks. Would you think this is a fair system? Could you see that system having a negative effect on the software industry? Do you think this would push people out of the industry who might otherwise be great developers? Would this system, that is ostensibly designed to protect customers, actually result in a better level of service?
    - gameswithgo 8y ago
      We do live in a world where you can be sued for negligence in software or anything else.
    - spamizbad 8y ago
      > Imagine a world in which a software developer was held personally liable for any work they did. We already live in this world, it’s just that most software had zero impact on the wellbeing of individuals and/or its mostly licensed as-is. Software with actual guarantees behind it tends to be very expensive. Their users have tort recourse. Also major software companies get sued and settle on a fairy regular basis.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - slg 8y ago
        >most software had zero impact on the wellbeing of individuals I agree with the "most" designation, but there is still plenty of software that does have a direct impact. >or its mostly licensed as-is. Which is exactly my point. Most software comes with an agreement that limits the liability for the company or person who created or sold the software. Developers are able to hand waive away that legal liability in ways that other professions, specifically in the industry, are not able to. >Software with actual guarantees behind it tends to be very expensive. Their users have tort recourse. But that is dictated by the contract which sets standard that is above the legal bare minimum. The legal minimum is much higher for doctors. >Also major software companies get sued and settle on a fairy regular basis. I will admit my analogy isn't perfect because of the relatively high number of private practice doctors compared with the relatively lower number of smaller ISV developers. Doctors as a whole have a much higher exposure than software developers as a whole. That is why I noted that contracts might change if software malpractice cases really became a thing.