Ewww.... here it comes...

Amazing that Burdick was "unaware" of the issue. Either she's a slacker in her day job or clueless in her elected position.

Keeping soverign immunity the law of the land seems entirely consistent with the push for protection from accountability whether it is war under false pretenses or protection of OHSU.

Isn't one of the right's big arguments the fact that public providers are less efficient and effective than market-driven private interests?

I think the whole concept of soverign immunity immunizes politicians (and the public who elects them) from ultimate accountability.

R

If Burdick read the damn newspaper she would have found that anywhere from 44,000 to 100,000 patients die from medical errors nationwide annually and that about 1% of those patents are in Oregon and some of them are in OHSU. But that requires paying attention. M.

Charlie, what do you have against Ginny? Lots -- in fact, most -- bills die due to lack of a hearing. Walker's a freak show, and an anti-SAIF bill has very little chance of making it through the legislature, so Ginny's non-holding of a hearing might constitute a good use of legislative resources, rather than a vast conspiracy.

Instead, you try to tie many tenuous things together. Are you being paid to do a smear campaign by Erik Sten, or WTF?

I'm not sure the problem here is being diagnosed correctly. If the patient is seen as "the people of Oregon", the prescription being offered -- removing the sovereign immunity of OHSU -- may wind up making the patient very sick. If that were to happen, who would be accountable for the unintended consequences? Happens all the time in public policy when (perhaps) well-intended "solutions" produce dire effects.

I would say the real problem is the lack of an efficient system for compensating victims of medical errors. A system that doesn't promote defensive medicine and contribute further to spiraling health care costs. A system that doesn't threaten physicians in high-risk fields -- especially obstetrics -- with bankruptcy every time they perform a procedure. In other words, a "no fault" system where all providers pay into a victim compensation fund.

Of course providers should be accountable! But providing accountability essentially through a lottery (the tort system) where some plaintiffs get jillions, but 90% get screwed, doesn't make sense to me. I think accountability is better handled through a disciplinary process managed largely but not totally by professional peers, and where the remedy for a mistake is more likely to be training or mentoring than bankruptcy.

Phen,

Thank you for bringing up the key elements in this debate, i.e. that it is the system that is at fault for allowing "jackpot" lawsuits while most people get screwed... where's the justice in that?

Honestly, as I see it though, people are still missing the crucial fact here that OHSU does serve a vital public interest, it cares for lots of poor Oregonians who can not pay for their care and otherwise would not get care elsewhere. If I recall correctly, 40% of the patients at OHSU are indigent and can not pay for the cost of their care, whereas elsewhere, at the private hospitals in Portland, that is 10% or lower. For OHSU to survive given these losses, it has to have deals with the state to cover its losses (which include liability) or else it would go belly-up in a month, and then where would that leave all the people who have nowhere else to turn? Out in the cold and sick, as the private hospitals are not caring for their share.

I see it as the height of hypocrisy to criticize OHSU for having a special status vis-a-vis the state and state support, and then to demand that it provides services that are not reimbursed.

I know, this case is tragic, but bankrupting the only hospital in town that provides services to the poor is not the solution... don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Full disclsure: I'm a medical student at OHSU and am highly dedicated to its mission to provide healthcare to the poor.

Charlie, you are welcome to think "having a jury review the individual facts of a case is the most appropriate way to determine compensation" but I hope you realize that's just your opinion, not a statement of Truth. I can agree with you in tort cases where there's a transgression by one party against another. Yes, there was a "medical error." My point is that the victim's compensation should not depend upon how deep the pockets of the erring party are. Better that all victims have a fair chance at prompt compensation through an adjudication system, rather than having to: a. go through the mental anguish and uncertainty of a trial b. wait a really long time for the issue to be resolved c. take a chance on getting zilch in the end

I know all trial lawyers are very nice people who fulfill a vital function in our democracy, but we don't have to involve them quite so intensively and lucratively in this particular field.

Uhh, Charlie, I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make, but you did seem to miss mine entirely, or just didn't care to address it.

I acknowledged that the case that everyone is talking about is tragic and didn't say anywhere that that poor kid should not get all the healthcare that he needs (in fact I stated clearly that I support publicly-funded healthcare for the poor and am devoting my career towards that). I also said that people need to take responsibility for the fact that they want OHSU to care for poor peole but they don't want OHSU to enjoy financial mechanisms that amke that possible.

Make up your mind, or better yet, fork out some cash to pay for the kid's healthcare, because if you want a public hospital to pay for healthcare for the poor, you'd better recognize that that means that you are paying for it out of your taxes--- if you aren't wiling to do that, then you have no right to criticize.

Charlie,

I think we agree that this child, and in fact all children (and adults too, I would argue), deserves adequate healthcare. That's not debatable.

The question is, who is refusing to take responsibility for his healthcare? You say it is OHSU. I believe that is crap. I say that it is the rest of us who refuse to take responsibility. OHSU is a public hospital that cares for poor patients because we mandate it to do so and because we give it money to do so. But we don't give it enough money to achieve this, which is why it has resorted to schemes like this to get by. I'm not saying that their scheming is just, but the solution is not to sue them, that will only resolve this one case (at best)--- the real solution is to provide them with adequate funding to fulfill the mandate that we demand of them.

We as a society have shirked our responsibility in adequately funding this public institution to serve its mission, and this is the consequence of that action.

One solution would be universal healthcare, like single-payer, in which the costs of this case would be covered by the risk pool of the nation at-large. But is that being discussed? No, instead we are debating the merits of a sensationalized case instead of addrssing the root cause and solution of the problem (which I contend is because so many of the parties on the left and right (trial lawyers, insurance companies and, sadly, many physicians) have vested interests in maintaining it that way).

This case is a distraction that will only result in the perpetuation or aggravation of this problem, and this post is discouraging and disturbing to find on a "progressive" blog.

Hurray for a voice of reason in Jesse O. Charlie, you are hell-bent on misleading folks into believeing that Ginny Burdick is Gard & Gerber. Gard & Gerber got the 40K not Burdick. While I think you try to educate the public about the Med-Mal caps at OHSU and other state entities, you use this as a mechanism for smearing Burdick and you aren't being completely forthright about the situation. If you don't agree with Burdick's stand on the issues, then talk about that. Or is that the problem? Afraid she might be more right on than your golden boy on issues so you have to slam her any other way possible?

"Hurray for a voice of reason in Jesse O."

Jesse O, who doesn't want to "smear" burdick (aka holding her accountable) but who thinks nothing about casually calling Senator Vicki Walker, who has taken many couragous stands, a "freak show." Yeah, hurray.

[editor: off topic comments about gun control deleted]

Yet she killed the one bill that would have allowed accountability in the medical profession for mistakes.

Hmmmm...I wonder.

There can only be two explanations:

1. she is pandering to her constituency, and has zero compunction regarding spending the taxpayers money for votes (Most of those bills wouldn't pass constitutional muster, and would ahve failed after years of costly litigation).

2. she is pandering to her employer's interest.

perhaps its both?????????

Just some food for thought. Flame away!

Hmmm…

Lets just put this this way, since certain topics have been deemed off-limits:

Ginny fielded 8 bills intended to mitigate the deaths of 29500 number of Americans (source: CDC). Each of these bills were steered through committee and each of these bills got hearings, some even here in Portland. She went out of her way to make sure that all of these were given full and due course. Each of them failed to make it out of committee, but at least they were given hearings.

Sadly, a bill that would have HELPED folks who are killed or injured by the medical establishment…78400 in 2004, wasn’t even given a hearing.

Note to editor: my point was NOT to point out her position on a particular issue, but rather to compare apples to apples and demonstrate a clear bias toward her clients and pet projects as opposed to the good to society as a whole(including her constituent base.) Death is death and we have to have a benchmark. No where else will we find that benchmark. 8 bills for one issue that may effect 29500 number of people got hearings, and 1 bill that could effect 78400 number of people wasn’t.