As Dr. Robert D. Russo, president of the Connecticut State Medical Society (CSMS) and Matthew C. Katz, CSMS’ vice president and CEO, outlined in the long list of activities that the CSMS is involved in “State medical society still has important influence” (Aug. 10), it is clear that contrary to the opinions expressed in another recent HBJ […]
As Dr. Robert D. Russo, president of the Connecticut State Medical Society (CSMS) and Matthew C. Katz, CSMS' vice president and CEO, outlined in the long list of activities that the CSMS is involved in “State medical society still has important influence” (Aug. 10), it is clear that contrary to the opinions expressed in another recent HBJ article, “Healthcare consolidation means waning influence for medical societies” (Aug. 3), the CSMS is indeed active and influential in many areas.
In all fairness, the CSMS's influence has to be considered from two viewpoints.
1. First, there are social issues like the use of opioids, childhood obesity and domestic violence. But compared to those that follow they are relatively easy to confront. They take time and energy but they are commonsensical and don't invoke too much push back. CSMS leaders who sit on various committees do a pretty good job of handling them.
2. The other issues are the tough political ones. These are unbelievably difficult. I refer to the insurance companies' inordinate role in health care and the malpractice system's unduly adversarial methods that compel doctors to practice defensive medicine (ordering tests that may not be necessary to have a defense in case a suit is filed).
To begin, confronting the insurance companies and getting them to loosen their stranglehold on doctors and the way medicine is practiced is not done by sitting around a committee table with insurance executives and lawmakers and using logic to arrive at good solutions. Getting insurers to change requires that a majority of the physicians in Connecticut have to physically bring their concerns to our lawmakers.
This won't solve the insurance problem but it will at least be the first step to making lawmakers realize how serious doctors are about how insurers' interference has devalued their work and made them less effective, and how it has put up a psychological barrier between them and their patients.
As for improving the way malpractice is handled, better ways have been discussed. Special health courts dedicated just to malpractice are one, another is so-called arbitration. Both have positive value but the trial lawyers' dominance in this area is just as great as the insurers' in theirs.
If the CSMS is to be as effective as its critics want it to be it will have to drop all of its social agenda and focus strictly on reducing the insurance industry's influence on the way medicine is practiced and convincing lawmakers that new and better ways of handling malpractice suits must be found.
Dr. Edward Volpintesta is doctor based in Bethel.
