North Carolina Regulators to Cut Back on Malpractice Data
Southeast News • July 18, 2008
North Carolina medical regulators voted to cut back on the amount of information they will post on a Web site about malpractice settlements of North Carolina doctors.
The News & Observer of ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Lame-Brain, Overzealous Reporting of Settlements
Posted On: July 18, 2008, 3:38 pm CDT
Posted By: Calif Ex Pat
Comment:
As the title suggests, I disagree w/ the bird brains running North Carolina's medical negligence reporting data base.
We already have long since established a National Medical Claims Reporting database which requires reporting "significant cases".
Long long ago in California, the reporting threshold was 2500 (hundred) and was then raised to 30,000 as no right thinking Doc would consent to settle the low number nuisance cases as their professional reputation was on the line. It was still tough to gain consent to settle at 30,000, but possible when expeditious compromise seemed in the Doc's best interests.
I would agree to a networked reporting data base to be closely held and furnished only to accredited hospital crentialing committee folks.
Subject: Lame-Brain, Overzealous Reporting of Settlements
We already have long since established a National Medical Claims Reporting database which requires reporting "significant cases".
Long long ago in California, the reporting threshold was 2500 (hundred) and was then raised to 30,000 as no right thinking Doc would consent to settle the low number nuisance cases as their professional reputation was on the line. It was still tough to gain consent to settle at 30,000, but possible when expeditious compromise seemed in the Doc's best interests.
I would agree to a networked reporting data base to be closely held and furnished only to accredited hospital crentialing committee folks.