LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  March 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE March 2003

Subject:

doctors

From:

Bob Broedel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:04:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (165 lines)

SOURCE: New York Times
TITLE : E-Mail Illuminates Doctors' Protest
DATE  : March 10, 2003
AUTHOR: By ANDREW JACOBS

Wear white lab coats at public appearances. Punish
uncooperative colleagues. Above all, make sure patients
experience colossal inconveniences.

A month after thousands of New Jersey doctors staged a work
stoppage to protest rising malpractice insurance rates, a
series of e-mail messages between doctors and protest
organizers making those and other recommendations offers an
intriguing glimpse into the strategies and sentiments that
drove the five-day job action.

Most of New Jersey's 20,000 physicians canceled routine
checkups and rescheduled elective surgery during the week
of Feb. 4 in one of the nation's largest walkouts ever by
doctors. Emergency rooms were inundated with patients, and
a mass rally in Trenton drew 4,000 doctors and extensive
media coverage. Another walkout is planned in Connecticut
later this month, and on March 11, busloads of New York
doctors are expected to demonstrate in Albany.

The e-mail messages, distributed by the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a consumer group opposed to
the doctors' demands, reveal the intense frustration and
anger felt by physicians in New Jersey, many of whom blame
trial lawyers, Democratic legislators and greedy patients
for their skyrocketing insurance premiums. In the messages,
lawyers are referred to as "prostitutes" and "blood
suckers," and doctors who refuse to participate are called
"scabs" and "parasites."

Representatives of the Consumer Rights group declined to
say how they obtained the e-mail messages, which were in an
Internet forum used by doctors.

In the weeks leading up to the protests, physicians were
advised that wavering colleagues should be threatened with
a loss of referrals, the financial mainstay of many private
practices. "You are either with us or against us, there is
no in between," the vice president of the Hudson County
Medical Society, Steven P. Shikiar, warned in a message
that went to 1,500 physicians.

The main goal of the campaign, he and others said, was to
make patients feel the effects of the work stoppage through
increased bureaucracy and postponed treatment. "Cause
confusion and inconvenience," Dr. Shikiar wrote. "Let them
know that this is the health care system of the future if
it is not fixed now."

Another doctor whose name did not appear on the e-mail
message proposed an even more radical step: to cease
writing prescriptions for inexpensive generic medications
and write prescriptions only for limited quantities so
patients are forced to make multiple return visits. "Don't
call in Rx's. Make the patients pick up written script,"
said the doctor, using the medical shorthand for
prescriptions. "The patient can pick up the script from a
box outside my office door where they can read a prominent
sign explaining what we are doing."

Dr. Shikiar, an Englewood surgeon who organized the e-mail
forum, said that many suggestions were made during a
heightened emotional climate, and most were quickly
disavowed. "I tried to leave the discussion open," he said
in a telephone interview. "I don't think it's fair and
reasonable to look at one line out of one e-mail and draw
any conclusions."

Some ideas, like denying health care to lawyers,
legislators and their families, were immediately rejected,
he said. Others, like a call to boycott National Public
Radio for what one writer called "a slant against doctors"
was simply ignored.

But some protest strategies - and the flinty language used
by a handful of doctors - has provoked a furor among those
who oppose the physicians' main objective, a $250,000 cap
on "pain and suffering" awards to victims of medical
malpractice. Doctors were not seeking any change in the
other award category, which compensates malpractice victims
for lost wages and medical expenses.

Some critics cited a protest placard that compared
legislators to Osama bin Laden and a letter, distributed on
the Internet by a North Brunswick urologist, that likened a
ranking state senator to Saddam Hussein. Assemblyman Neil
M. Cohen, chairman of the commerce and banking committee,
whose office was picketed by 80 doctors, said the vitriol
was excessive, and in the end, counterproductive. "The
doctors got carried away with themselves," he said.

Mr. Cohen, a Democrat who is helping to draft malpractice
reform legislation, said he thought that many physicians
had been fed inaccurate or incomplete information about the
recent spike in malpractice premiums. The rallying cry over
jackpot awards, he said, ignored statistics that showed a
drop in medical malpractice lawsuits last year. Of 205
cases that went to a jury in New Jersey in 2002, physicians
won 151; only 18 of the verdicts yielded judgments of more
than $1 million, far fewer than the "dozens" cited during
the protests. Those awards included damages for lost wages
and medical expenses, as well as for pain and suffering.

Mr. Cohen and others cite a study by the Medical Society of
New Jersey, the group that helped orchestrate the job
action, that showed that the $250,000 cap would lead to
only a 6 percent drop in insurance rates. He added that
most doctors were not told about other factors behind the
increases in premiums, including investment losses and
other problems in the insurance industry. "I think they
decided to go with the $250,000 cap mantra because it fit
nicely on a hat," Mr. Cohen said.

A compromise on the malpractice awards issue appears to be
in the works. The current Senate bill includes a $300,000
limit on the amount insurers would pay for pain and
suffering, but also would create a $25 million fund each
year to augment cases that juries deem catastrophic. Even
then, the award could be no more than $1 million. The
so-called excess award fund would be financed through a $3
payroll surcharge on employees who work in the medical,
legal and accounting professions.

Dr. Robert S. Rigolosi, president of the medical society,
said he was heartened by negotiations in the Legislature,
adding that rumors of another job slowdown were just that.
"I think we're arriving at some reasonable compromises," he
said. "We can work through the differences we have." Groups
representing trial lawyers and consumer watchdog
organizations, however, remain opposed to any cap on
awards.

In the continuing Internet forum discussion, many doctors
are still unhappy. In e-mail messages, some called the
proposed compromise a sellout and a few clamored for a
second walkout. Overall, however, there was widespread
satisfaction that a profession known for its political
quiescence was able to draw so much attention to the
malpractice awards issue. Several doctors, feeling
empowered by last month's experience, vowed to unseat
unsympathetic lawmakers during next year's elections.

Dr. John M. Taylor, a plastic surgeon from Long Branch who
made an unsuccessful bid for the Assembly two years ago as
a Libertarian Party candidate, said running for political
office alone had its benefits.

"There is nothing like a direct threat to a professional
politician's job by a well-funded challenger to set their
pants on fire, even if you don't win the election," he
wrote.

He added that gathering petition signatures for the ballot
would be a "piece of cake." "Our waiting rooms alone," he
wrote, "would provide enough signatures within a week or
two."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/nyregion/10DOCS.html?
ex=1048304609&ei=1&en=f2b7e579124d2ffb

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager