Although insurers generally rig the game so they make a profit no matter what the outcome, they have learned that preventing undesirable outcomes gives them a much more predictable return. This is part of the reason why they’re moving more toward increasing preventive care (often slandered with the name “defensive medicine,” although the two are very distinctly different paradigms). And it is part of the reason why one insurer is urging doctors and patients to rethink optional caesarean sections.
It’s another “told you so” moment, because the reason why the insurer is making this request of doctors is that babies who are born via c-sections before 39 weeks of gestation are twice as likely to require neonatal intensive care as babies delivered vaginally. The insurer has been looking over its claims from over 670,000 members in Colorado, and it found that an optional c-section was expensive for it and for patients. It does not currently plan to change re-imbursement structures for doctors who perform c-sections or ask patients to pay more out-of-pocket for them, but that may be on the horizon.
Doctors who believe that c-sections are the way to prevent medical malpractice lawsuits should take notice. C-sections are NOT safer than vaginal birth, and their high incidence may be the cause of increased medical malpractice insurance rates, not the result.
If you or a loved one have had a child who suffered a birth injury as a result of interventionist doctor’s practices during labor and delivery, contact the experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Harvey L. Walner & Associates, LTD today for a free initial consultation and case evaluation.
