Med Mal News

Task Force: Frequent Cervical Cancer Screenings Unnecessary and Harmful

On March 15, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) released new guidelines for cervical cancer screenings, challenging the long-held belief that women should undergo a Pap test every year. The new guidelines recommend no screenings until a woman reaches the age of 21, then tests every three years until age 65. For women between 30 and 65 years old, the frequency can be diminished to every five years, if a human papillomavirus (HPV) screening is done in conjunction with the Pap smear test. Women over 65 need not be tested at all, so long as they have had adequate screenings prior to age 65. These new recommendations do not apply to women who have received a diagnosis of a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cervical cancer, women with in-utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or women whose immune systems are compromised.

A primary goal of the new guidelines is to diminish the problem of over-diagnosis, which can cause needless anxiety for women who are told they have an abnormal test result. According to the Task Force, the treatments that sometimes follow a falsely suspect test result are often unnecessary, and can do more harm than good. For example, cold-knife conization and loop excision procedures have been known to cause women to suffer pre-term births or miscarriages. The study's authors concluded that these potential harms outweighed any advantages yielded by more frequent testing for signs of cervical cancer. For more recommendations and further information about the Task Force investigation's findings, go to: www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf11/cervcancer/cervcancerrs.htm#summary.

Excess Malpractice Fund Dollars Can Go to State

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court in March overturned a lower court order directing the state to return money it shifted out of a state fund created to help doctors cover medical malpractice costs. Pennsylvania has a program known as MCare, which covers damage payments to plaintiffs when they are in excess of a doctor's own medical malpractice insurance coverage. MCare is funded by assessments on health care providers. In 2003, the state lowered (or in some cases did away with) the amounts doctors must pay into MCare, in a bid to assist them with what were then seen as outrageous increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums. To offset these abatements, Pennsylvania replaced the money doctors would have paid with money collected through taxes. It soon became apparent, however, that the funds in MCare far exceeded the excess medical malpractice payout needs of the state's doctors and, in 2009, the state moved $708 million out of MCare and into the state's coffers. The Pennsylvania Medical Society and the Pennsylvania Hospital and Healthsystem Association sued for the return of the money, arguing that it should have been left in MCare to offset future costs to doctors. But the high court sided with the state, concluding, “The plain language of this provision demonstrates that the budget secretary 'may' transfer (special fund) monies to the MCare fund in an amount 'up to' the aggregate amount of abatement.”

Task Force: Frequent Cervical Cancer Screenings Unnecessary and Harmful

On March 15, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) released new guidelines for cervical cancer screenings, challenging the long-held belief that women should undergo a Pap test every year. The new guidelines recommend no screenings until a woman reaches the age of 21, then tests every three years until age 65. For women between 30 and 65 years old, the frequency can be diminished to every five years, if a human papillomavirus (HPV) screening is done in conjunction with the Pap smear test. Women over 65 need not be tested at all, so long as they have had adequate screenings prior to age 65. These new recommendations do not apply to women who have received a diagnosis of a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cervical cancer, women with in-utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or women whose immune systems are compromised.

A primary goal of the new guidelines is to diminish the problem of over-diagnosis, which can cause needless anxiety for women who are told they have an abnormal test result. According to the Task Force, the treatments that sometimes follow a falsely suspect test result are often unnecessary, and can do more harm than good. For example, cold-knife conization and loop excision procedures have been known to cause women to suffer pre-term births or miscarriages. The study's authors concluded that these potential harms outweighed any advantages yielded by more frequent testing for signs of cervical cancer. For more recommendations and further information about the Task Force investigation's findings, go to: www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf11/cervcancer/cervcancerrs.htm#summary.

Excess Malpractice Fund Dollars Can Go to State

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court in March overturned a lower court order directing the state to return money it shifted out of a state fund created to help doctors cover medical malpractice costs. Pennsylvania has a program known as MCare, which covers damage payments to plaintiffs when they are in excess of a doctor's own medical malpractice insurance coverage. MCare is funded by assessments on health care providers. In 2003, the state lowered (or in some cases did away with) the amounts doctors must pay into MCare, in a bid to assist them with what were then seen as outrageous increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums. To offset these abatements, Pennsylvania replaced the money doctors would have paid with money collected through taxes. It soon became apparent, however, that the funds in MCare far exceeded the excess medical malpractice payout needs of the state's doctors and, in 2009, the state moved $708 million out of MCare and into the state's coffers. The Pennsylvania Medical Society and the Pennsylvania Hospital and Healthsystem Association sued for the return of the money, arguing that it should have been left in MCare to offset future costs to doctors. But the high court sided with the state, concluding, “The plain language of this provision demonstrates that the budget secretary 'may' transfer (special fund) monies to the MCare fund in an amount 'up to' the aggregate amount of abatement.”