• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Scribe

Literary genius. Academic prowess

  • In the Press
  • Student Articles
  • Editor Blogs
    • Extended Reality: Applications and Implications
    • An Introduction to Flight
    • A Retrospective on Film
    • Psychology: Controversies and Myths
  • About
    • Alumni
    • Staff
  • Contact

Trust Me, I’m Premed: Proposition 46

October 11, 2014 by Flyn Kaida-Yip Leave a Comment

Premed Banner

 

Proposition 46 addresses important issues in healthcare, but it does so in a hasty and haphazard fashion. The three provisions of Proposition 46 are to require drug testing for physicians, require physicians to check an online database prior to prescribing narcotics, and to increase the cap on “pain and suffering” damages in malpractice. At first, these provisions seem reasonable, which is precisely how trial lawyers and their supporters designed Proposition 46 to appear. Supporters of Proposition 46 advertise increased medical safety, but they do not include the high costs to medical facilities and, subsequently, consumers.

The mandatory drug testing provision of Proposition 46 is possibly the most reasonable. As the proposed law states, people in other safety-sensitive occupations are required to undergo mandatory testing. The specifics are, however, extremely vague. Would a physician doing routine check-ups and non-invasive procedures require the same mandatory testing as would a surgeon operating on the heart or brain? It is also unclear when and how often physicians would be required to undergo drug testing. Ideally, if physicians did test positive, they would have the option to seek professional help prior to losing their medical licenses. This provision does have the potential to improve the quality of healthcare and the health of physicians through decreasing drug and alcohol abuse.

The provision that requires physicians to check a prescription history prior to prescribing narcotics is certainly logical and beneficial to patient health. It would also reduce the amount of illegal prescription drugs being sold and abused. Unfortunately, the database that Proposition 46 plans to use, CURES, requires a lengthy registration process. Should Proposition 46 pass, this provision would go into effect immediately, meaning that any physicians not already registered to CURES would be penalized. More importantly, a single database would then hold huge amounts of confidential patient information. If it is not secured extremely carefully, it leaves the prescription histories of almost every California resident vulnerable. With the rushed implementation of Proposition 46, it seems unlikely that security will immediately be up to par. Requiring physicians to check and update CURES would be very beneficial, but it must be implemented slowly and carefully to avoid the possible pitfalls.

Last but certainly not least, increasing the cap on “pain and suffering” damages is the part that supporters of Proposition 46 actually care about. Economic damages in a malpractice suit are already paid in full, and the pain and suffering aspect is simply an additional settlement. Although the attorney’s fees maintain their current cap, this provision would essentially make every small malpractice suit worth pursuing for trial lawyers. Currently, many cases would not create enough profit for lawyers to deem the case worthwhile. If the $250,000 cap were increased to $1.1 million as is proposed, then lawyers would receive much larger sums as well, even if they are still limited to their current fee cap. While it is true that the “pain and suffering” cap has not been adjusted for inflation, it is dangerous to suddenly quadruple it. Malpractice insurance would likely double as a result, and either this cost would significantly increase consumers’ medical bills, or physicians may simply find it more worthwhile to seek employment in a different state. Just as with the CURES provision, a slow but steady implementation of this provision might be reasonable, but a sudden flip of the switch is certainly not.

Physicians should be held to a high standard, but they do make mistakes. As it turns out, the human body is fairly complicated and seeing an increasingly high volume of patients every day is tiring. Mistakes will happen, and some will be far more significant than others. Drug testing and updating CURES would help reduce these mistakes, but quadrupling the pain and suffering cap makes practicing medicine more akin to walking on eggshells than actually helping people. Physicians should not be punished disproportionately for small mistakes, and lawyers should seek easy money elsewhere.


Flyn Kaida-Yip

View all posts

Filed Under: Featured Blogs

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Editor Blogs

  • An Introduction to Flight
  • Extended Reality: Applications and Implications
  • A Retrospective on Film
  • Psychology: Controversies and Myths

Recent Posts

  • Predicting the Path a Particle Will Take in a Fluid: A Brief Overview
    Oliver Khan
    February 16, 2023
  • MDMA and Psychotherapy
    Kaitlyn Woods
    February 16, 2023
  • Monocular Visual Cues and VR
    Shanna Finnigan
    February 16, 2023
  • A Guide Through the Proof of the (Second) Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
    Oliver Khan
    February 2, 2023
  • Innate Moral Core: Part 2 (Morality in Preverbal Children)
    Kaitlyn Woods
    February 2, 2023
  • Why I Write on XR
    Shanna Finnigan
    February 2, 2023
  • Constructing the Riemann Integral: A Brief Prelude to Real Analysis
    Oliver Khan
    November 11, 2022
  • Kiki’s Delivery Service: Emerging into Adulthood
    Dayvin Mendez
    November 11, 2022

Copyright © 2023 · Scribe on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in