ChatGPT in private practice: The opportunities and pitfalls of novel technology.

OBJECTIVE: This article explores the transformative impact of OpenAI and ChatGPT on Australian medical practitioners, particularly psychiatrists in the private practice setting. It delves into the extensive benefits and limitations associated with integrating ChatGPT into medical practice, summarising current policies and scrutinising medicolegal implications. CONCLUSION: A careful assessment is imperative to determine whether the benefits of AI integration outweigh the associated risks. Practitioners are urged to review AI-generated content to ensure its accuracy, recognising that liability likely resides with them rather than with AI platforms, despite the lack of case law specific to negligence and AI in the Australian context at present. It is important to employ measures that ensure patient confidentiality is not breached and practitioners are encouraged to seek counsel from their professional indemnity insurer. There is considerable potential for future development of specialised AI software tailored specifically for the medical profession, making the use of AI more suitable for the medical field in the Australian legal landscape. Moving forward, it is essential to embrace technology and actively address its challenges rather than dismissing AI integration into medical practice. It is becoming increasingly essential that both the psychiatric community, medical community at large and policy makers develop comprehensive guidelines to fill existing policy gaps and adapt to the evolving landscape of AI technologies in healthcare.

Carving Out Financial Success: The Power of Insurance Carve-Outs in a Private Plastic Surgery Practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there has been a push away from fee-for-service payment models. The rise of bundled payments has drastically impacted plastic surgeons' incomes, especially nonsalaried surgeons in private practice. As a result, physicians must now attempt to optimize contractual reimbursement agreements (carve-outs) with insurance providers. The aim of this article is to explain the economics behind negotiating carve-outs and to offer a how-to guide for plastic surgeons to use in such negotiations. METHODS: Based on work relative value units, Medicare reimbursement, overhead expenses, physician workload, and desired income, the authors present an approach that allows surgeons to evaluate the reimbursement they receive for various procedures. The authors then review factors that influence whether a carve-out can be pursued. Finally, the authors consider relevant nuances of negotiating with insurance companies. RESULTS: Using tissue expander insertion (CPT 19357) as an example, the authors review the mathematics, thought process required, and necessary steps in determining whether a carve-out should be pursued. Strategies for negotiation with insurance companies were identified. The presented approach can be used to potentially negotiate a carve-out for any reconstructive procedure that meets appropriate financial criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding practice costs will allow plastic surgeons to evaluate the true value of insurance reimbursements and determine whether a carve-out is worth pursuing. Plastic surgeons must be prepared to negotiate adequate reimbursement carve-outs whenever possible. Ultimately, by aligning the best quality patient care with insurance companies' financial motivations, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to improve reimbursement for some reconstructive procedures.

Litigation in arthroscopic surgery: a 20-year analysis of legal actions in France.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to identify the epidemiological characteristics of litigation following arthroscopic procedures, performed in private practice and public hospitals in France. The secondary objective was to establish a risk profile for medical malpractice lawsuits after arthroscopic surgery. METHODS: All court decisions related to arthroscopic surgery between 1994 and 2020 were collected and reviewed cases from the two main French legal databases (Legifrance and Doctrine). Data were retrospectively collected and included: gender, joint and defendant's specialty involved, reason behind the lawsuit, initial indication and the type of arthroscopic procedure performed. The final verdicts as well as the indemnity awarded to the plaintiff (if any) were recorded. RESULTS: One-hundred eighty cases met the inclusion criteria of the study and were analyzed: 58 cases were before administrative courts and 122 were before civil courts. An orthopaedic surgeon was involved alone or in solidum in 45.6% of cases (82/180), followed by anesthesiologists in 5.6% (10/180). The private surgery center or public hospital were implicated in 63.9% (115/180) of cases. The 2 most common joints involved in litigation following arthroscopic surgery were the knee (82.2%, n = 148) and the shoulder (11.1%, n = 20). The main reasons behind the lawsuit were related to postoperative infection in 78/180 cases and to a musculoskeletal complication in 45/180 cases (25%). A failure to inform was also reported in 34/180 cases (18.9%). Of the 180 cases, 122 cases (67.8%) resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The average indemnity award for the plaintiff was 77.984 euros [2.282-1.117.667]. A verdict for the plaintiff was significantly associated with postoperative infection or a wrong-side surgery, while technical error and musculoskeletal complications were more significantly likely to result in a verdict in favor of the defendant (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: This study evaluated and mapped lawsuits following after arthroscopic surgery in France over a period of more than 20 years. The main joint involved in lawsuits was knee. The main causes of lawsuits following arthroscopic surgery were related to postoperative infection, musculoskeletal complications and failure to inform. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Preserving social equity in marketized primary care: strategies in Sweden.

A primary care choice reform launched in Sweden in 2010 led to a rapid growth of private providers. Critics feared that the reform would lead to an increased tendency among new, profit-driven, providers, to select patients with lower health risks. Even if open risk selection is prohibited, providers can select patients in more subtle ways, such as establishing their practices in areas with higher health status. This paper investigates to what extent strategies were employed by local governments to avoid risk selection and whether there were any differences between left- and right-wing governments in this regard. Three main strategies were used: risk adjustment of the financial reimbursements on the basis of health and/or socio-economic status of listed patients; design of patient listing systems; and regulatory requirements regarding the scope and content of the services that had to be offered by all providers. Additionally, left-wing local governments were more prone than right-wing governments to adopt risk adjustment strategies at the onset of the reform but these differences diminished over time. The findings of the paper contribute to our understanding of how social inequalities may be avoided in tax-based health care systems when market-like steering models such as patient choice are introduced.

Impact of the Current United States Health Care Environment on Practice: A Private Practice Viewpoint.

The evolving healthcare landscape creates unique challenges for private practitioners. They experience the same issues that face physicians in general - including increased regulatory/documentation burdens and downward financial pressures - but without the safety nets that exist in larger healthcare systems. Costs are born more directly, as there are fewer providers over which to spread expenditures. Financial reserves are less robust, making margins thinner to maintain profitability. Guaranteed referral streams are absent, requiring additional effort and creative solutions to maintain patient volume. As hospital systems expand, private practitioners must remain nimble, while maintaining excellent service and outcomes, in order to stay ahead.

Outcomes and associated factors in malpractice litigation involving inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: Placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters is a controversial focus of medical malpractice. Clinicians currently have little information to guide them regarding key issues and outcomes in litigation. In this retrospective legal case review, we analyzed the factors associated with malpractice actions involving IVC filters. METHODS: The legal databases LexisNexis and Westlaw were searched from 1967 to 2016 for all published legal cases in the United States involving placement of IVC filters. Keywords included "IVC," "inferior vena cava," "filter," and "malpractice." Social Security Disability claims, product liability actions, and hospital employment contract disputes were excluded. RESULTS: There were 310 search results eligible for initial review. After application of exclusion criteria, 29 cases involving medical malpractice were included in final analysis. The majority of excluded cases were insurance disputes and tax revenue cases. Overall, private practitioners were most often sued (11/29 [37.9%]), whereas 24.1% of defendants were academic hospitals (7/29), 20.7% were prisons (6/29), and 17.2% were community hospitals (5/29). The most common specialty named was vascular surgery (8/29), whereas interventional radiologists were named only twice. The most common indications for IVC filter placement were hypercoagulable state (8/29 [29.6%]), recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE; 6/29 [22.2%]), and trauma (5/29 [18.5%]). The most common underlying allegations involved failure to insert IVC filter when indicated (14/29 [48.3%]), intraprocedural negligence (5/29 [17.2%]), and failure to timely remove device (5/29 [17.2%]). Common complications included failure to prevent occurrence of PE (14/29 [48.3%]), device migration (4/29 [13.8%]), and perforation of organs or vasculature (3/29 [10.3%]). Death of the patient occurred in 41.4% of total cases (12/29). In cases in which the patient died, the most common indications for filter placement were trauma (4/12 [33.3%]) and deep venous thrombosis (3/12 [25.0%]), and the most common complication in those patients who died was the failure to prevent a subsequent PE (9/12 [75.0%]). Available verdicts favored defendants (13/14 [92.9%]). In cases with defense verdicts, the most common indications for filter placement similarly were trauma (4/13 [30.8%]) and deep venous thrombosis (3/13 [23.1%)], and the most common complication was failure to prevent PE (9/14 [64.3%]). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of malpractice cases involving IVC filters revealed key factors associated with litigation. Overall, verdicts favored defendants. Private practitioners were most commonly sued, and the most common reasons for bringing suit were failure to insert filter, intraprocedural complications, and failure to remove filter. Deeper awareness of issues related to malpractice litigation can inform clinical practice and improve patient care and safety.

Practice Consolidation: Forces Not of Nature, but of Government, Demographics, Economics, and Technology.

The demand for healthcare services is increasing more rapidly than the supply of providers, while reimbursement levels ignore the free market law of supply and demand. The regulated healthcare environment in the United States fails to increase prices (i.e., reimbursement rates) as demand outstrips supply. Healthcare practitioners must find alternative methods in order to continue providing excellent patient care while at the same time maintaining an economically viable practice. Practice consolidation with the assistance of private equity healthcare investment is an extremely attractive solution to this imbalance.