Study: Doctors order tests out of fear of lawsuits (AP)

[pphilfran]

SAN DIEGO (AP) — CT scans, MRIs and other pricey imaging tests are often more for the doctor's benefit than the patient's, new research confirms.

Roughly one-fifth of tests that bone and joint specialists order are because a doctor fears being sued, not because the patient needs them, a first-of-its-kind study in Pennsylvania suggests.

The study comes a day after President Barack Obama began a push to overhaul state medical malpractice laws as a way to reduce unnecessary tests that drive up health care costs.

"This study is a glimpse behind the curtain of what's happening in a doctor's mind," said its leader, Dr. John Flynn of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. If doctors sense you might second-guess them or cause trouble, "you could potentially be risking more tests being done."

Results were reported Wednesday at an American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons conference in California.

Patients expect the highest level of care and think this means the most advanced technology, Flynn said. Many patients feel better when a doctor orders lots of tests — until they get the bill.

Besides hurting your wallet and adding to health care costs, unnecessary tests can expose people to radiation that accumulates over a lifetime and can raise the risk of cancer. Ordinary X-rays are rarely a concern, but an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging scan, can cost $1,000 or more. And super-sharp X-rays called CT scans involve relatively large radiation doses.

Yet doctors often order tests they don't really think a patient needs because they fear being sued if the diagnosis was wrong or they miss detecting a problem.

Previous studies of how often this happens have relied on doctor surveys. This is the first one to enlist doctors in advance to track their decisions over time.

It involved 72 orthopedic surgeons throughout Pennsylvania who tracked tests they ordered on 2,068 patients, mostly adults, in ordinary office visits, emergency rooms and other settings. Doctors checked a box saying a test was either required for clinical care or done "for defensive reasons."

Defensive imaging accounted for 20 percent of total tests — 11 percent of X-rays, 38 percent of MRIs, 33 percent of CT scans, 57 percent of bone scans and 53 percent of ultrasounds.

Defensive medicine also accounted for 35 percent of costs, nearly all of it from MRIs.

One example: a torn meniscus, a knee cartilage injury that is a leading reason for knee surgery. Studies have shown that a doctor's judgment based on symptoms and an exam is even better than an MRI to diagnose the condition. Yet patients hardly ever go to surgery without having the imaging test, Flynn said.

Surprisingly, the study found that newer doctors were less likely to be defensive.

"That's counterintuitive," Flynn said. "You would expect when you're new in practice, not as trustful of your clinical judgment, you'd order more."

Doctors who have been sued in the last five years were more likely to order tests defensively, said Robert Miller, a Temple University medical student who helped lead the study and presented the results at the conference. The authors said similar studies are needed on defensive imaging in other specialties.

Dr. Lawrence Wells, a Philadelphia surgeon who participated in the study, said doctors learn to develop "a radar" for problem patients.

"It's disheartening" to be sued, he said. "Someone's accusing you of a bad outcome or a wrong," and that can affect how a doctor behaves the next time he sees a similar case.

Patients need to trust their doctor's judgment on what is needed, Wells said.

On Tuesday, Obama made a budget proposal that includes money to help states rewrite malpractice laws. Possible measures include caps on awards. The administration also has proposed health courts where specially trained judges rather than juries would decide such cases.

Questions to ask about a medical test:

—Is it truly needed? How will it change my care?

—Have you or another doctor done this test on me before?

—Does the test involve much radiation and is there an alternative that does not?

—How many images are needed?

—Do you have a financial stake in the machines that will be used?

[KantoSooner]

I wonder how much you could cut out of the nation's health care bill if you elminated:

1. Defensive medicine
2. Medicare Fraud (truly illegal type)
3. Medicare abuse (if you haven't yet, watch the totally LEGAL shoveling of unneeded supplies at the elderly. My dad gets diabetes stuff from three sources and has driven himself crazy trying to get these bastards turned off. They are, of course, billing medicare, so have no interest in stopping the shipments. He's finally resorted to taking the 2/3 he doesn't use to the local free clinic.)
4. Heroic end of life care....when we spend something like 50% of our lifetime health care bill to extend our miserable lives by six months or so.

My bet would be that our national 'bill' would come down to somewhere in line with the global average of other civilized countries.

[Half a Hundred]

I wonder how much you could cut out of the nation's health care bill if you elminated:

1. Defensive medicine
2. Medicare Fraud (truly illegal type)
3. Medicare abuse (if you haven't yet, watch the totally LEGAL shoveling of unneeded supplies at the elderly. My dad gets diabetes stuff from three sources and has driven himself crazy trying to get these bastards turned off. They are, of course, billing medicare, so have no interest in stopping the shipments. He's finally resorted to taking the 2/3 he doesn't use to the local free clinic.)
4. Heroic end of life care....when we spend something like 50% of our lifetime health care bill to extend our miserable lives by six months or so.

My bet would be that our national 'bill' would come down to somewhere in line with the global average of other civilized countries.

Seriously. News flash: we're all gonna die someday, and it's scary. However, it's inevitable. In my mind, I'd rather understand what's coming, call family and friends together, say my goodbyes, and go out on my own terms. Don't want to go out thinking the doctor "didn't try hard enough."

[Oldnslo]

We landed on the Moon?

The hell you say!

[Midtowner]

The funny thing is that by practicing defensive medicine, docs only increase the number of things they can be sued for. One of the elements of a medmal case is that the care the patient received wasn't within the standard of care, sometimes the standard of care for that particular jurisdiction. So if all docs would stop doing defensive medicine as a rule, theoretically, that would alter the standard of care.

I wonder whether defensive medicine is really about lawsuits or billing as much per patient as possible.

Probably some of both.

[jkjsooner]

We ran into a similar issue when my wife was pregnant. First, I'll back up a few weeks. Her blood pressure was high and her pediatrician sent her to the hospital. They stabilized her blood pressure and ran some tests. One of the tests was an ultrasound. A while later we got a bill for a couple of grand for the ultrasound. It was considered some special type of ultrasound that wasn't covered by the insurance.

Problem #1 with our health care system. When you're in the hospital, how in the hell do you know the cost of a procedure, whether it is normal, and whether it is covered by insurance? Unless you're a doctor (and maybe then not) at that point you can do nothing but trust their judgements.

A few weeks later they were scheduled to do an induction. We got my wife checked into the hospital. After a few hours the gynecologist game in, said something that didn't make sense and informed us we would have to come back the next night. I caught him in a contradictory statement so I pressed the issue. He said, "Well, to be honest the inn is full tonight and we can't do the induction." But, before we left they wanted to run the same ultrasound tests they did a few weeks earlier. It was a CYA move. We refused but they kept insisting. To be honest I don't remember if they ended up doing the test or not.

As it turns out, our doctors persuaded the hospital to recode the ultrasound(s) and the insurance accepted them.

Nevertheless, I came out with the impression that our healthcare system is completely f'ed. We have no way to know that what appears to be a routine procedure is actually uncovered and really expensive and we have doctors CYA's which in turn can be very expensive for the patient or the insurance (which indirectly is expensive for everyone).

Edit: I meant gynecologist. I promise my wife isn't a child. ;-)

[soonercruiser]

The funny thing is that by practicing defensive medicine, docs only increase the number of things they can be sued for. One of the elements of a medmal case is that the care the patient received wasn't within the standard of care, sometimes the standard of care for that particular jurisdiction. So if all docs would stop doing defensive medicine as a rule, theoretically, that would alter the standard of care.

I wonder whether defensive medicine is really about lawsuits or billing as much per patient as possible.

Probably some of both.

Wrong!
Doctors usually rely on a "professional's" (specialist"s) interpretations of studies like radilogoly, MRIs, immunology, endocrinology, hematology, etc.

[Veritas]

In other shocking news, Ellen Degeneres is gay!

[Penguin]

Just give us a wheelbarrow full of Xanax and Oxycontin prescriptions and we'll call it even.

[Midtowner]

Wrong!
Doctors usually rely on a "professional's" (specialist"s) interpretations of studies like radilogoly, MRIs, immunology, endocrinology, hematology, etc.

So they don't practice defensive medicine because of lawsuits?

Or do they try to bill insurance for as much as possible?

Or do they do these things because specialists say they are necessary?

[sooner59]

WE NEED TORT REFORM!!! Jest sayin.

[yermom]

I wonder how much you could cut out of the nation's health care bill if you elminated:

1. Defensive medicine
2. Medicare Fraud (truly illegal type)
3. Medicare abuse (if you haven't yet, watch the totally LEGAL shoveling of unneeded supplies at the elderly. My dad gets diabetes stuff from three sources and has driven himself crazy trying to get these bastards turned off. They are, of course, billing medicare, so have no interest in stopping the shipments. He's finally resorted to taking the 2/3 he doesn't use to the local free clinic.)
4. Heroic end of life care....when we spend something like 50% of our lifetime health care bill to extend our miserable lives by six months or so.

My bet would be that our national 'bill' would come down to somewhere in line with the global average of other civilized countries.



Seriously. News flash: we're all gonna die someday, and it's scary. However, it's inevitable. In my mind, I'd rather understand what's coming, call family and friends together, say my goodbyes, and go out on my own terms. Don't want to go out thinking the doctor "didn't try hard enough."

why you gotta pull the plug on grandma with your death panels? :(

[Okla-homey]

WE NEED TORT REFORM!!! Jest sayin.

Errbody is for "tort reform"... until they or someone they love gets hurt.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The lawsuit is the only weapon John Q. Public has with which to punish and/or encourage powerful interests to do the right thing.

One more thing, when was the last time you met, or even heard of an impoverished physician? You haven't. And that jive about docs becoming docs to "help people" is hogwash. .9996% do it because it allows them to become the richest guy in the neighborhood.

[pphilfran]

Errbody is for "tort reform"... until they or someone they love gets hurt.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The lawsuit is the only weapon John Q. Public has with which to punish and/or encourage powerful interests to do the right thing.

One more thing, when was the last time you met, or even heard of an impoverished physician? You haven't. And that jive about docs becoming docs to "help people" is hogwash. 99.96% do it because it allows them to become the richest guy in the neighborhood.

99.96%?

[yermom]

a lawyer talking about someone being in it for the money

this is classic :D

seriously though, there are probably easier ways to make money than being a doctor...

[Okla-homey]

99.96%?

sorry. .9996.

[Okla-homey]

seriously though, there are probably easier ways to make money than being a doctor...

Not ones that don't involve the risk of arrest and incarceration.

[yermom]

it takes a lot of school to get there, and then residency, etc... it's not like it's easy to be a doctor or just anyone can do it (like law school ;) )

i think there is as much ego involved as there is money

[Okla-homey]

it takes a lot of school to get there, and then residency, etc... it's not like it's easy to be a doctor or just anyone can do it (like law school ;) )

i think there is as much ego involved as there is money

You are correct sir. It does take a lot of school. But let's be intellectually honest. It's an occupation filled with people, many of whom aren't very likable, that requires post-graduate education and an apprenticeship (which is what a residency is) and allows the person to become the richest guy in the neighborhood while allowing him to make outlandish profits from his customers' pain and suffering.

[pphilfran]

You are correct sir. It does take a lot of school. But let's be intellectually honest. It's an occupation filled with people, many of whom aren't very likable, that requires post-graduate education and an apprenticeship (which is what a residency is) and allows the person to become the richest guy in the neighborhood while allowing him to make outlandish profits from his customers' pain and suffering.

Outlandish profit?

They go to school for an f'n decade...they have huge debts from school and setting up a practice (or they work for a network at reduced salary)

From Wiki...you can do a search and find similar numbers at many places...

About $200k a year for family practice...around 52 hours a week and 58 bucks an hour..outlandish?

The mean annual salary of a medical specialist is $175,011[2] in the US, and $272,000 [2] for surgeons. However, because of commodity inflation, increasing negligent costs, steep price rise of rental, the annual salary range of a medical specialist varies and is not rising as fast as other professional pay. Outlandish?

[yermom]

well, when compared to a lawyer it is

[sooner_born_1960]

99.96%?


sorry. .9996.
OK. Now I'm confused. Did you mean to say "almost all of them" or "almost none of them"?

[soonercruiser]

So they don't practice defensive medicine because of lawsuits?

Or do they try to bill insurance for as much as possible?

Or do they do these things because specialists say they are necessary?

My response relates to your contention that by ordering extra tests, they expose themselves to more lawsuits....that's a red herring!
(That's like the Dems and libs complaining about people are going to get hurt when we cut the govment's out-of-control spending.)

The STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRES doctors to have another specialists' opinion to support their diagnosis and treatment ........because of the lawyers...
:rolleyes:
The "standards of care" have been developed after many years of law suits about bad diagnosis and inappropriate care.

[sooner59]

Errbody is for "tort reform"... until they or someone they love gets hurt.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The lawsuit is the only weapon John Q. Public has with which to punish and/or encourage powerful interests to do the right thing.

One more thing, when was the last time you met, or even heard of an impoverished physician? You haven't. And that jive about docs becoming docs to "help people" is hogwash. .9996% do it because it allows them to become the richest guy in the neighborhood.

I was being facetious. That's what is yelled out all of the time. It would be nice to try to decrease the amount of frivolous lawsuits, though. Malpractice insurance can be very expensive...depending on the area of the country you are in and what your specialty is. A dermatologist in Oklahoma may pay $20K per year while making $400,000, whereas an OB/GYN in New York may pay over $100,000 and only make $300k. Then take out federal taxes...and state taxes if your state requires it. You may be netting similar figures to someone making a little over six figures. A family doctor in rural Oklahoma may only make $120K...after malpractice, taxes, and possible overhead costs if you own your clinic, you may as well be an electrician, because you are going to be paid like one. Not all doctors become doctors to be rich. There is too much school, training, costs, and lives on the line to just want to make a buck. Every doctor I know says if you want to be rich, go into business, because the rising costs, threats of frivolous lawsuits, and stress aren't worth the money. You have to be passionate about what you are doing. Or maybe all of the people I know are in the 00.04%.

[Pants]

Agree w sooner59.

[Leroy Lizard]

Not all doctors become doctors to be rich.

I'll go along with that.


There is too much school, training, costs, and lives on the line to just want to make a buck.

Greed is a powerful motivator. Possibly the most powerful of all.

[jkjsooner]

Every doctor I know says if you want to be rich, go into business.

I hear this all of the time but it really doesn't hold up. More people graduate with business degrees than any other degree and the majority of them will never be rich or even make an incredibly high salary.

Some extremely motivated and talented people will become really rich after obtaining a business degree but it's hardly a guarantee. I can't imagine an MD who hasn't lost his license and truly wants to work is ever unemployed. You can't say that about business majors, engineers, lawyers, etc.

If you want a guaranteed upper middle class or above salary and you are willing to put in the time and effort, medical school is the safest bet. I don't think anyone can deny that this this is a motivating factor.

[GrapevineSooner]

Not sure if there's any doctors on the board here.

But from the tone of some of these posts, it does sound like a lot of you think that when a doctor orders a test, they perform the labwork on that test themselves, ala in House.

On a side note, I obviously love the show. But if there's one big knock I have against it, it's the idea that House's underlings carry out all the tests that he orders.

In real life, there are companies like Lapcorp that handle all that. I'd be interested in hearing just how much of a kick back docs who order tests that are contracted out to lab companies actually get.

And yes, I'll submit to you that there are docs who go into this for the money. To try and put a particular percentage of the field who goes into it (particularly if it's anything about 90%) is preposterous.

[Pants]

There are MANY better ways to make money besides being a doctor. If you
Want to get into medicine you'd better not do it for the money. Tons of different professions one can get in to with much better hours for the pay. I'll leave it at that. Still yet, it's a privilege to be a physician in many ways.

[bigfatjerk]

I wonder how much you could cut out of the nation's health care bill if you elminated:

1. Defensive medicine
2. Medicare Fraud (truly illegal type)
3. Medicare abuse (if you haven't yet, watch the totally LEGAL shoveling of unneeded supplies at the elderly. My dad gets diabetes stuff from three sources and has driven himself crazy trying to get these bastards turned off. They are, of course, billing medicare, so have no interest in stopping the shipments. He's finally resorted to taking the 2/3 he doesn't use to the local free clinic.)
4. Heroic end of life care....when we spend something like 50% of our lifetime health care bill to extend our miserable lives by six months or so.

My bet would be that our national 'bill' would come down to somewhere in line with the global average of other civilized countries.
I think we just need to make health care more of a free market and completely open up to what the patient wants and/or needs, with the help of the doctor. I think because we've got so much that the doctor is scared of and that is limited by what a person's health care plan is.

I think it would just be easier if a patient is able to get specific things in their health care plan. I would like it best if every type of health care plan was in a free market and an individual can just buy something for their asthma condition, something for a heart attack, something if some sort of accident happens. Instead of just buying a basic try and cure everything plan that probably isn't necessary. I guess I'm in the minority of thinking of only getting a health care plan that I would actually need to use instead of one that I might never even use.

The problem with the health care system we have today is everyone buys a health care system and they only use a small percentage of it most of the time.

[FroggyStyle22]

I think we just need to make health care more of a free market and completely open up to what the patient wants and/or needs, with the help of the doctor. I think because we've got so much that the doctor is scared of and that is limited by what a person's health care plan is.

I think it would just be easier if a patient is able to get specific things in their health care plan. I would like it best if every type of health care plan was in a free market and an individual can just buy something for their asthma condition, something for a heart attack, something if some sort of accident happens. Instead of just buying a basic try and cure everything plan that probably isn't necessary. I guess I'm in the minority of thinking of only getting a health care plan that I would actually need to use instead of one that I might never even use.

The problem with the health care system we have today is everyone buys a health care system and they only use a small percentage of it most of the time.

The problem with this thinking is that preventative medicine (screening tests for potential illnesses) is cheaper than waiting for the full onset of a condition. Plus it can also spare the patient lots of discomfort. Diabetes is a perfect example of this.

[pphilfran]

The problem with this thinking is that preventative medicine (screening tests for potential illnesses) is cheaper than waiting for the full onset of a condition. Plus it can also spare the patient lots of discomfort. Diabetes is a perfect example of this.

The problem with this thinking is that it is probably wrong...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4

The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.

[sooner59]

I know this is completely hypothetical and there isn't a way to truly know how it would turn out, but what if preventative medicine was utilized to point where it maximized the country's health as high as realistically possible. Many people are going to be able to work more, which should put more money in their pockets, which they can spend....simulating the economy enough to make up for the price different and still have a healthier population. That would be nice. I do know that for some conditions, preventing the onset is much less expensive than treating it and trying to eliminate it.

[pphilfran]

I know this is completely hypothetical and there isn't a way to truly know how it would turn out, but what if preventative medicine was utilized to point where it maximized the country's health as high as realistically possible. Many people are going to be able to work more, which should put more money in their pockets, which they can spend....simulating the economy enough to make up for the price different and still have a healthier population. That would be nice. I do know that for some conditions, preventing the onset is much less expensive than treating it and trying to eliminate it.

This is where it is going to get very tough...

The cost to test everybody will probably be more than the cost to treat the limited number of people that actually get the disease...

It also could extend the lifespan and the older ya get the more ya cost....

It is going to be very difficult to reign in heath care costs...

The costs of new eq (MRI, Cat Scan) and whatever new technology is in the works won't be cheap....

It will be a difficult challenge to decide what procedures and treatments will be available to all...it is already happening but I see it getting much more focus in the near future...

[bigfatjerk]

The problem with this thinking is that it is probably wrong...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4

The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.

There's also some things you can't prevent. I think that's why a market has basic things available. Car insurance for example, nobody plans on getting car insurance that can prevent a wreck. You get car insurance to help pay for a wreck. Health care should be the same way.

If you have family history with heart problems, which almost everyone does, diabetes, asthma, or other genetic diseases. You probably want that covered in a plan just in case. Just like you want an accident covered in most health care plans.

If you want to take care of your health care when you are older, the best way is probably a personal medical savings account. That way an individual can make sure nobody else raids that account. Like our government does with social security and other entitlements.

Trying to prevent diseases is a hard thing to do. A person can be 100% healthy, run all the time, be a health nut, have no heart problems in a family and still get a heart attack with very little warning. Or that person can get cancer out of nowhere. As this information shows it's hard to take care of people in a preventative matter and keep health care affordable.

[bigfatjerk]

This is where it is going to get very tough...

The cost to test everybody will probably be more than the cost to treat the limited number of people that actually get the disease...

It also could extend the lifespan and the older ya get the more ya cost....

It is going to be very difficult to reign in heath care costs...

The costs of new eq (MRI, Cat Scan) and whatever new technology is in the works won't be cheap....

It will be a difficult challenge to decide what procedures and treatments will be available to all...it is already happening but I see it getting much more focus in the near future...


This is all true and why anything will make it difficult to reign in costs. But I'm pretty sure government isn't the way to go with this. Prices are already going way up and we aren't even starting with any health care coverage yet. All these companies are getting wavers from getting health care because they see that they can't buy health care for their employees.

[soonercruiser]

Not sure if there's any doctors on the board here.

But from the tone of some of these posts, it does sound like a lot of you think that when a doctor orders a test, they perform the labwork on that test themselves, ala in House.

On a side note, I obviously love the show. But if there's one big knock I have against it, it's the idea that House's underlings carry out all the tests that he orders.

In real life, there are companies like Lapcorp that handle all that. I'd be interested in hearing just how much of a kick back docs who order tests that are contracted out to lab companies actually get.

And yes, I'll submit to you that there are docs who go into this for the money. To try and put a particular percentage of the field who goes into it (particularly if it's anything about 90%) is preposterous.

See my last posts.
That is what I said - even as far as having certain lab studies and radiographic studies "interprteted" by the other specialist.
(dentist here)

[SoonerHoops]

WE NEED TORT REFORM!!! Jest sayin.


No, we really don't. It serves no purpose other eliminate the deterrance factor that big verdicts have on making sure big business and medical professionals do things the right way. Tort reform doesn't lower insurance rates (see Texas). It's unconstitutional, both at the state and federal level. It's a waste of time and money.

[bigfatjerk]

No, we really don't. It serves no purpose other eliminate the deterrance factor that big verdicts have on making sure big business and medical professionals do things the right way. Tort reform doesn't lower insurance rates (see Texas). It's unconstitutional, both at the state and federal level. It's a waste of time and money.

I agree, tort reform to me is another way of limiting wealth. I think the problem is just the system.

[sooner59]

No, we really don't. It serves no purpose other eliminate the deterrance factor that big verdicts have on making sure big business and medical professionals do things the right way. Tort reform doesn't lower insurance rates (see Texas). It's unconstitutional, both at the state and federal level. It's a waste of time and money.

Nice first post. But next time read the entire thread. See post #24. I wasn't being serious. I forget people don't get sarcasm with a :rolleyes: next to it.

[sooner59]

I hear this all of the time but it really doesn't hold up. More people graduate with business degrees than any other degree and the majority of them will never be rich or even make an incredibly high salary.

Some extremely motivated and talented people will become really rich after obtaining a business degree but it's hardly a guarantee. I can't imagine an MD who hasn't lost his license and truly wants to work is ever unemployed. You can't say that about business majors, engineers, lawyers, etc.

If you want a guaranteed upper middle class or above salary and you are willing to put in the time and effort, medical school is the safest bet. I don't think anyone can deny that this this is a motivating factor.

My counter to this is that medical school is not easy to get into. Anybody can get a business degree if you pass your classes. There are more people with business degrees because they are easier to come by. You have to be extremely motivated and talented just to get an interview to medical school. But if they think you aren't in it for the right reasons, they may still boot you. You say its a safe bet. I know of quite a few people that spent their entire undergrad prepping for medical school and didn't get in. Some even went to graduate school and got a masters or PH.D. to add to their resume and still didn't get in. I've talked to people with similar stories who had impressive MCAT scores and 3.8 GPAs and up and interviewed and got rejected. I'm just saying that motivation and talent can get you a long way in business, but it may not even get a foot in the door for medicine. I've seen it happen. I realize there are a lot of doctors that wanted big bucks and they got it. But if you were around a class of medical students nowadays, you would realize that this isn't typical. Years ago....maybe. The new doctors coming out today realize what the future of medicine looks like....more regulations, changing policies, the chance of lowered salaries, frequent frivolous lawsuits, etc. This is just a subject that I am very close to, so I want to clarify that attitudes of future doctors are changing and admission processes are becoming increasingly complex. I know a couple of great doctors who have been practicing for a long time who would barely get looked at today by med schools. Some because of their grades and scores, some because other reasons.

[jkjsooner]

I meant it's more of a guarantee once you get into medical school and especially once you graduate. Unless you're a total f' up, you will have a good job with a high salary for life. You will never have to worry about financial security.

Plus, if you don't get into medical school you can take your engineering, chemistry, biology, etc. degrees and do something with it. You can still go get your MBA if you choose to do so. You haven't gambled away a lot at that point.

[SicEmBaylor]

In real life, there are companies like Lapcorp that handle all that. I'd be interested in hearing just how much of a kick back docs who order tests that are contracted out to lab companies actually get.

My dad always sent all of his lab tests to a place in Muskogee. I'm almost 100% sure that he never received any sort of kickback. HOWEVER, they did extend hin a lot of courtesies which I suppose could be considered something of a kickback, but it never came in monetary form.

I don't know about other doctors though...if they do then I'm going to be seriously disappointed that we weren't in on that kind of action.

[SicEmBaylor]

I meant it's more of a guarantee once you get into medical school and especially once you graduate. Unless you're a total f' up, you will have a good job with a high salary for life. You will never have to worry about financial security.

Plus, if you don't get into medical school you can take your engineering, chemistry, biology, etc. degrees and do something with it. You can still go get your MBA if you choose to do so. You haven't gambled away a lot at that point.

Yep, that's why majoring in Pre-Med or Pre-Law is a really really stupid idea.

[soonercruiser]

I agree, tort reform to me is another way of limiting wealth. I think the problem is just the system.

Ya! We don't want to limit the wealth of lawyers., do we?????
:rolleyes:

[sooner59]

Yep, that's why majoring in Pre-Med or Pre-Law is a really really stupid idea.

I don't know about other schools, but I know OU does not offer a "Pre-Med" degree. You can declare yourself as pre-med and join the pre-med club, be in the loop with info by email and have access to the pre-med adviser and everything, but your major is up to you. You just have to fulfill the pre-reqs for med-school. The most common majors for pre-meds are normally zoology, zoology:biomedical sciences, microbiology, chemistry, etc. But I have seen international studies, spanish, philosophy, psychology, and even people who just do those degrees that let you take whatever you want and just try to complete pre-reqs and take random classes and assume they will get into med-school. Yes, those are the stupid ones. Without an actual major you don't even get a degree that's worth much. But the adviser strongly discourages that.