A new study – the first of its kind – reviewed the medical literature on patient’s expectations of the benefits and harms of medical treatments, with surprising results. Medical malpractice lawyers discuss this study and how it reflects patient safety in the United States.
The study, Patients’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests was published in one of the most esteemed peer-reviewed journals in the world, JAMA Internal Medicine. Researchers analyzed more than 30 studies wherein patients were asked whether or not they understood the pros and cons of certain treatments.
Most of the time, patients had no idea what the benefits and risks of their treatments were: on average, 65% of patient overestimated any given treatment’s potential gain.
For example, one of the studies involved women who had undergone a double mastectomy. Researchers asked these women to estimate how much the surgery reduced their risk of breast cancer. On average, the women estimated it would reduce their risk by about 65% – a gross overestimation.
Another study asked patients to estimate the pros of bowl and breast cancer screening. 90% of patients overestimated the benefits of breast cancer screening, and 94% overestimated the benefits of bowl cancer screening.
This pattern repeats over and over, from studies on the benefits of drugs to treat cardiovascular disease to hip fractures. The same was found when looking at studies that measured how much harm was being done to patients. One of these asked patients to estimate the risks of a CT scan. More than 40% underestimated how much radiation is involved, and 60% underestimated the risk of cancer from CT scans.
For a free legal consultation, call 800-934-6555
For the record, a single CT scan exposes patients to the same amount of radiation as 300 x-rays, and carries a 1 in 2,000 risk of inducing a fatal cancer.
The crux of the issue is that patients are severely under-informed about the risks they are taking during medical care. The fault partially lies in a lack of doctor communication, but also in the lobbying of drug and medical device companies. Watch any drug commercial and you will hear the benefits overstated, without any real data backing it up, and the risks swept under the rug.
If patients knew about the actual risks and gains of medical care, they would choose to have less of it. This threatens doctors, medical companies, and Big Pharma, which all have extraordinary lobbying power. Keeping patients in the dark about treatments adds to healthcare spending without effectively treating people. It’s time we do something to change that.
Doctors and Big Pharma Working Together at Cost of Patient Safety
Complete a Free Case Evaluation form now
One of the leading voices in patient safety, Dr. Chuck Denham, recently agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement with the Justice Department. Denham is accused of taking illegal kickbacks from a drug company to promote its products in national health quality guidelines. Unfortunately, these types of doctor kickbacks are incredibly common.
Drug and medical device companies often offer money to doctors under the guise of “consulting fees,” “entertainment expenses,” and other labels. Doctors are then expected to recommend the company’s products to patients and other doctors, to drive up sales and profits for drugs or devices that are not necessarily safe or effective. Although kickback schemes of this type are illegal, they are still widespread.
Kickback schemes between doctors and medical companies not only undermine the integrity of medical decisions, but undermine the health marketplace as well. They are also an immense waste of taxpayer dollars. Only quality and safety should influence medical decisions, and any person or company that puts profits above patients should be held responsible.
Our team of medical malpractice attorneys has been working on these types of cases for over 30 years and can take clients from any state. We provide free, confidential legal consultations to anyone who was seriously injured by medical negligence.