[quote]Proposition 46, which would have changed California's medical malpractice law, has failed, AP reports.
It would have raised the limit on lawsuit awards for pain and suffering from $250,000 to about $1.1 million, to account for inflation since the cap was implemented in 1975.
In addition, the measure would have required hospitals to randomly test their physicians for alcohol and drug use. Doctors also would have been tested after the occurrence of certain medical mistakes or any events that caused a patient’s death or serious disability.[/quote]
[url=http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-prop-46-results-20141104-story.html]Source[/url]
Woo!
The story doesn't include how much more difficult it would make to prescribe painkillers.
..why is it good that it failed.
[quote] Providers would be required to check the database for drugs that have a higher potential for abuse, including such drugs as OxyContin, Vicodin, and Adderall. If the check of CURES finds that the patient already has an existing prescription for one of these drugs, the health care provider must determine if there is a legitimate need for another one.[/quote]
Thats a good fucking idea
[quote]This measure requires hospitals to conduct testing for drugs and alcohol on physicians who are affiliated with the hospital. There are currently no requirements for hospitals to test physicians for alcohol and drugs.[/quote]
thats another good fucking idea
[quote] If the Board finds that a physician was impaired by drugs or alcohol while on duty or during an adverse event, or that a physician refused or failed to comply with drug and alcohol testing, the Board must take specified disciplinary action against the physician. This action may include suspension of the physician's license.[/quote]
--
[url]http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/analysis.htm[/url]
How the hell is any of this [I]bad[/I] for people?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46424019]..why is it good that it failed.
Thats a good fucking idea
thats another good fucking idea
--
[URL]http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/46/analysis.htm[/URL]
How the hell is any of this [I]bad[/I] for people?[/QUOTE]
Medical liability insurance for doctors would have [I]skyrocketed[/I]. We'd have seen a migration of Californian doctors to other states where it's far cheaper and less risky to practice (250K for malpractice is something a doctor can get through, 1.1 million is over 4x that amount). The legislation would have also required doctors and pharmacists to register themselves and their patients on an outdated online database with little to no protection against hackers, so people had privacy concerns about that as well. Note also that a host of doctors, clinics, and hospitals were urging people to vote this down for these same reasons and more - not because of the drug testing thing. The bill was constructed around that because, well, nobody disagrees with drug testing doctors. The problem is the other stuff they snuck into the bill. Sneaky bastards.
[editline]6th November 2014[/editline]
You can read more [URL="http://www.noon46.com/get-the-facts/"]here[/URL] and [URL="http://www.noon46.com/costs/"]here[/URL].
[QUOTE=Furioso;46424174]Medical liability insurance for doctors would have [I]skyrocketed[/I]. We'd have seen a migration of Californian doctors to other states where it's far cheaper and less risky to practice (250K for malpractice is something a doctor can get through, 1.1 million is over 4x that amount). The legislation would have also required doctors and pharmacists to register themselves and their patients on an outdated online database with little to no protection against hackers, so people had privacy concerns about that as well. Note also that a host of doctors, community health clinics, and hospitals were urging people to vote this down for these same reasons - not because of the drug testing thing. The bill was constructed around that because, well, nobody disagrees with drug testing doctors. The problem is the other stuff they snuck into the bill.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for explaining this far more eloquently than I could have. The problem is that painkillers given after surgery like Codeine are considered Schedule II. This bill would've made it far harder for resident physicians and attending physicians to prescribe Sched. II narcotics because the DEA has their fingers in the pie. Imagine telling a dude who needed an aortic aneurysm repaired that he couldn't be given narcotics because of history, and also couldn't be given any lighter painkillers because the clotting factor could very well kill him?
[QUOTE=Furioso;46424174]Medical liability insurance for doctors would have [I]skyrocketed[/I]. We'd have seen a migration of Californian doctors to other states where it's far cheaper and less risky to practice (250K for malpractice is something a doctor can get through, 1.1 million is over 4x that amount). The legislation would have also required doctors and pharmacists to register themselves and their patients on an outdated online database with little to no protection against hackers, so people had privacy concerns about that as well. Note also that a host of doctors, clinics, and hospitals were urging people to vote this down for these same reasons and more - not because of the drug testing thing. The bill was constructed around that because, well, nobody disagrees with drug testing doctors. The problem is the other stuff they snuck into the bill. Sneaky bastards.
[editline]6th November 2014[/editline]
You can read more [URL="http://www.noon46.com/get-the-facts/"]here[/URL] and [URL="http://www.noon46.com/costs/"]here[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to read the facts about this from a website titled "No On 46" -- Thats like trying to read facts about Marijuana on /r/Trees.
I think most of what you posted is speculation and had not been seen if it went through. I agree the restitution did not need to be higher. The argument about privacy with the CURES database i find weak. The amount of information that your [I]insurance[/I] gets would be considered more invasive than checking a name in a database to see if a prescription always exists for a controlled substance. Doctor shopping is an issue and this is a good way to cut back on it.
From the CURES website, by [URL="http://oag.ca.gov/cures-pdmp/faqs"]CA DOJ[/URL]
[quote]CURES contains the patient name, date of birth, drug name, drug form, strength, quantity, pharmacy name, pharmacy number and the prescribing physician information.[/quote]
Followed by a release from the [URL="http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/n1568_brown_announces_rx_database.pdf"]CA BNE[/URL], I feel more confident in this "outdated" and seemingly "unsecure" database than before.
Hardly invasive. More invasive information is entered into law enforcement computers when you call 911.
How do we know that the database is "outdated" or has "little to no protection against hackers". I think these are used to try and draw fear into this prop.
I dont know man, I dont live in California, but cutting back on people doctor shopping, drug testing for physicians, discipline for violation of testing are good ideas.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46424355]I'm not going to read the facts about this from a website titled "No On 46" -- Thats like trying to read facts about Marijuana on /r/Trees.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. This prop affects doctors and health organizations, who are behind the website in question. These are people with doctorates and legitimacy on the subject who have to take an oath when they receive a medical license. Why would you think their stance invalidates the facts as presented? Aside from facts they discussed a few possible scenarios but they sure as hell didn't make anything up. You can cry bias but this affects them directly, they know what they're talking about.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46424355]I think most of what you posted is speculation and had not been seen if it went through.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't seem that hard to me to imagine that when your field of work gets 4 times as risky, cost-wise, you'd want to move somewhere where the risk is the same or less as when you started out. Would all doctors have moved? No, but some would have, and the medical system around here is already rather compacted.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46424355]The argument about privacy with the CURES database i find weak. The amount of information that your [I]insurance[/I] gets would be considered more invasive than checking a name in a database to see if a prescription always exists for a controlled substance. Doctor shopping is an issue and this is a good way to cut back on it. [/QUOTE]
The point is that there's nothing in place to prevent the information from being accessed by those who shouldn't be accessing it.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46424355]I dont know man, I dont live in California, but cutting back on people doctor shopping, drug testing for physicians, discipline for violation of testing are good ideas.[/QUOTE]
I live in California, and there's already enough things dissuading doctors from being here, not to mention what Zambies! talked about as well. Drug testing is fine but all the other shit really isn't.
At least doctor House can keep his job.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.