interesting article on malpractice, and the effect on medical costs
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/bu...nhardt.html?em
I personally still find the direct costs figures to be startlingly low... which is not to deny that there is still a drag on the system from this, but the drag is more ethereal than I had realized, and this leads to different possible solutions, I would assume--- I have to assume it is extremely hard to directly measure and quantify "defensive medicine", particularly to disentangle if from <<<whatever the term is for unnecessary tests that are not defensive... but are padding reimbursable costs>>> in this case, the goal would be to reduce costs overall, and not worry too hard about which of the two camps it falls under... death panels, anyone?