At Least 22 Lose Vision After Free Surgery

[WriteDown]

Source: AP

LUCKNOW, India — At least 22 elderly people in northern India have lost vision in one or both of their eyes after undergoing free cataract surgery at a state-owned clinic, a government official said Wednesday.

Health Minister Anant Kumar Singh said initial reports suggested they may have gone blind from infections caused by contaminated eye drops used during surgery.

The case marks the second time in three months that mass blindness has been reported after free government surgeries in the impoverished state of Uttar Pradesh. Nine people went blind after treatment in December.

The latest affected group, most of them between 60 to 70 years old, complained of blurred vision, swelling and itching in their eyes within days of surgery, said I.S. Srivastava, a senior health official in Uttar Pradesh.....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490828,00.html

---

This is my biggest fear with UHC. Who the heck do you sue?

[demodonkey]

1. Under UHC, there would be a malpractice fund...

...to compensate people who are victimized by bad treatment. However the damages would be much more compensatory for actual losses, rather than the big punitive awards that ambulance chasers go after now. This would be part of the cost savings overall.

I have NO healthcare. Who do I sue if I get sick, say infection or something that causes me a real damaging problem, and can't get ANY help because I can't afford even to be SEEN by a medical professional?

[AngryAmish]

11. Ambulance chasers?

In my state punitive damages are not allowed for medical malpractice. That is the case in the majority of the US.

In order to sue you have to get a doctor in the same specialty to review the case and file an affidavit that the case is legitimate. Then one has to hire doctors to testify about the malpractice (that runs between $5,000 to $10,000 per day plus travel expenses).

Doctors win about 75% of the jury trials.

It costs between $75 - 100,000 to try a malpractice case, even in clear liability.

My friend, it is a myth that health care costs are increasing because of malpractice claims.

[aviationpm]

12. So how much is eyesight worth?

The vast majority of people who can even win claims would rather have their health back instead of the money. Our system is rigged for big business - don't be fooled.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

2. You sue the doctor and/or hospital where they work and company that insures them for malpractice

Exactly the same as it is now.

Why would that change with Universal Health Care? It's not like you sue your own health insurance company when something goes wrong.

[WriteDown]

3. Because doctors would be federal employees...

which are often accorded certain protections. If I lost vision in both my eyes, I would expect 10's of millions of dollars.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

14. That, of course, depends entirely upon what legislation is enacted to implement UHC

Doesn't it?

Why would you assume that there won't be any provisions in said hypothetical legislation to address such a situation?

[sandnsea]

18. Those millions are often for health care

So if you had UHC, the basis for many of those law suits would be gone. Lots of blind people still work. So you would probably still have a case for retraining and lost wages, but some of the rest of it would be gone. Many states have already reduced pain and suffering too, so those millions are already gone.

[Doremus]

19. Doctors federal employees? Where did you hear that?

The type of universal health care that Obama has proposed is not socialized medicine, i.e. state-owned medical facilities, federally-employed practitioners, etc.

Heck, even single-payer insurance like Medicare doesn't employ the doctors.

[brentspeak]

21. s/del

[dflprincess]

4. Universal health care might result in fewer malpractice suits

There are times when something goes wrong with a procedure or medication and it's not really anyone's fault - it may just be you're the 1 in a million person to have a bad reaction. Under the current "system" the only recourse you have to get future medical bills paid is to sue and more often than not the malpractice insurer will settle. With univeral health care you won't have to worry about the medical bills.

(I can't use the "UHC" abbreviation - to me that will always be United HealthCare - a division of United HealthGroup)

[Donnachaidh]

10. it should if we had true oversight on the medical community

Doctors today DON'T do -anything- about the bad apples. Nothing. In fact, they do more for the protection of the bad apples by lobbying for legislation to limit damage awards.

With UHC, there should be oversight, as well as standards nationwide about quality of care. And THAT will keep lawsuits down, just by setting standards on care and ethical treatment of patients.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

13. I work for a trial law firm

We don't touch cases like that with a 10-foot stick; medical malpractice cases are incredibly hard to pursue in court. If there's no clear question of negligence, most reputable lawyers won't take the case and most judges will toss the case.

I'm also curious where you're getting the idea that "more often than not the malpractice insurer will settle"; I've been doing this for 6 years, never once seen a malpractice insurer settle without a protracted court battle.

[dflprincess]

16. It was anecdotal

from a friend who is a nurse at a hospital here. She told me what irked her is she knew of several cases where there really wasn't any malpractice or negligence but the MDs' or the hospital's insurance companies settled because it was cheaper to do so than to drag out the legal fees (I gather these cases were not for millions of dollars).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. you can sue the govt.

[WriteDown]

6. Yes, in some instances...

but you are essentially suing the innocent taxpayers.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. which is why you will probably not get punitive damages however that not a good arguments against

UHC

[CreekDog]

15. why do you keep saying that under UHC, doctors are federal employees?

universal health care as proposed by Obama would not turn doctors into federal employees any more than Medicare did.

[Posteritatis]

17. We can't have a UHC discussion without ridiculous and untrue claims

It's in the Constitution. Small print towards the back someplace.

[JNelson6563]

7. Those poor people!

Talk about a raw deal! Poor souls.

Julie

[4lbs]

9. Both my parents had cataract surgery last year that restored most of their sight in the eye that was

operated on. While they don't have 20/20 vision, it's more like 25/30 now, which is a huge improvement over what they were struggling with for several years.

The amazing thing about the surgery they got is that, being retired, they are on Kaiser Permanente and Medicare. Kaiser did a pretty good job with both their surgeries. They were in and done within several hours and home later that day. The opthamologist himself was really good and nice. Nearly the entire costs of the surgery and post-op medical were covered by the insurance. Even the new prescription glasses were free once instant rebates were applied. They only had to outlay a total of $200 for everything.

One of the few instances where everything went well, without a hitch.

[brentspeak]

20. Pretty pi$$-poor example of "universal health care" to cite

Try finding a comparable example of blatant medical stupidity committed by the Canadian or German UHC systems. You have as much time as you feel necessary.

[WriteDown]

22. Spent a lot of time in both countries....

Germany has a great system, but not sure I'm down for means testing. I can tell you that I once had a heck of a time trying to find anti-nausea meds for a friend who had a mild case of food poisoning on New Year's in Berlin. No pharmacists open on a holiday.