What this article doesn’t mention is the inflation factor attributable to personal injurya attorney represented cases. In an effort to portray injuries as severe as possible, these scavengers artificially inflate the “specials” by directing their clients to doctors who will order every high dollar diagnostic test on the planet, and make certain that physical therapy is used extensively. Tests like CAT scans and MRI’s were once reserved for significant exposure injuries. They’ve now become commonplace for soft tissue injuries. You would think that the advent of safer automobiles and highways would decrease severity of injuries and expenses. Apparently not for the litigious.
Also, aren’t those costs contributing to the inflation rate so, in effect, be included? Maybe the study should include the frequency v. severity factors and apply them to attorney represented claimants. Might be a major adjustment or rethinking there.
I agree but this may also be caused because standard medical insurance providers have negotiated standard rates for standard proceedures amongst their medical providers. When it comes to auto insurance I think the medical providers and the attorneys see more of a blank check. In that environment even the more ethical Dr. is going for CYA.
Maybe along the same route, but I think that the medical profession in many cases is running scared. If something happens that they did not diagnos because they didn’t order a test that they honestly felt didn’t need to be ordered…
So why should they take the chance. Order everything and CYA. So what if it inflates the cost.
What this article doesn’t mention is the inflation factor attributable to personal injurya attorney represented cases. In an effort to portray injuries as severe as possible, these scavengers artificially inflate the “specials” by directing their clients to doctors who will order every high dollar diagnostic test on the planet, and make certain that physical therapy is used extensively. Tests like CAT scans and MRI’s were once reserved for significant exposure injuries. They’ve now become commonplace for soft tissue injuries. You would think that the advent of safer automobiles and highways would decrease severity of injuries and expenses. Apparently not for the litigious.
Also, aren’t those costs contributing to the inflation rate so, in effect, be included? Maybe the study should include the frequency v. severity factors and apply them to attorney represented claimants. Might be a major adjustment or rethinking there.
I agree but this may also be caused because standard medical insurance providers have negotiated standard rates for standard proceedures amongst their medical providers. When it comes to auto insurance I think the medical providers and the attorneys see more of a blank check. In that environment even the more ethical Dr. is going for CYA.
Maybe along the same route, but I think that the medical profession in many cases is running scared. If something happens that they did not diagnos because they didn’t order a test that they honestly felt didn’t need to be ordered…
So why should they take the chance. Order everything and CYA. So what if it inflates the cost.
there’s tons of money available from auto insurers – there should be payment screens for auto claims similar to Blue Cross or Aetna limitations