There’s a lot of interest in health care right now in digitizing doctors’ decision-making, using computer databases to assist in diagnoses and treatments (Exhibit A: Wellpoint’s pilot project using Dr. Watson, the Jeopardy-winning super-computer, to assist doctors in the exam room). NPR flags new research that underscores how much that kind of technology could improve the quality of care we receive.

The study, published this week in the online journal PLoS One, examined medical errors at two Australian hospitals before and after implementing an e-prescribing system, where doctors use a computer to assist with ordering medications. The computer system studied here reviewed the patient’s current medications, alerted the prescriber to any potential conflicts, and then sent the order off, electronically, to the pharmacy.

When hospitals ditched pens, and switched to e-prescribing, the impact was pretty impressive. Error rates in prescriptions dropped by 60 percent, the researchers found. That’s huge, especially when you consider the scope of errors in hospital care right now. By one estimate, one in seven hospital patients will experience a mix-up in their medical experience. As the lead study author tells NPR, “People can actually read the prescribing orders now. You’re not relying on trying to interpret handwriting.” And that means more accurate, and error-free, medical care.

The New York Times recently published an interesting article on this topic. Here are excerpts:

A second term for President Barack Obama would allow him to expand his replacement of Republican-appointed majorities with Democratic ones on the nation’s appeals courts, the final stop for almost all challenged federal court rulings.

Despite his slow start in nominating judges and Republican delays in Senate confirmations, Obama has still managed to alter the balance of power on four of the nation’s 13 circuit courts of appeals. Given a second term, Obama could have the chance to install Democratic majorities on several others. Fourteen of the 25 appeals court judges nominated by Obama replaced Republican appointees.

The next president, whether it’s Obama or a Republican, also has a reasonable shot at transforming the majority on the Supreme Court, because three justices representing the closely divided court’s liberal and conservative wings, as well as its center, will turn 80 before the next presidential term ends. The three justices are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, conservative Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy, who leans conservative but on some issues provides a decisive vote for the liberals.

The next high court opening would cause a titanic confirmation fight if it would allow a Republican president to cement conservative control of the court by replacing Ginsburg or if Obama could give Democratic appointees a working majority for the first time in decades by replacing Scalia or Kennedy.

The prospect of such dramatic change on the Supreme Court, along with the justices’ strikingly high-profile election-year docket could heighten the judiciary’s importance as an election issue, said Curt Levey, who heads the conservative Committee for Justice. The justices will hear arguments on Obama’s health care overhaul in March and Arizona’s immigration crackdown in April. The court also could soon decide whether to hear a Texas affirmative action case challenging the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

Even one new justice can produce dramatic change. Justice Samuel Alito replaced the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and shifted the outcome in cases on abortion, campaign finance and other key issues, even though both were appointed by Republicans.

Openings on the circuit courts of appeals get much less attention, but those courts have the last say in most legal disputes that are appealed in the federal system. Only about 80 cases make it to the Supreme Court every year.

There are still more Republicans than Democrats on the circuit appeals courts and on the entire federal bench. But if Obama merely filled existing vacancies, Democratic appointees would be the majority on the influential court of appeals in Washington, where four current Supreme Court justices once served, and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Republicans also maintain their edge on the 10th Circuit in Denver only because two judgeships are empty.

Two other appeals courts on which Republicans have comfortable majorities could shift over the next four years. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit has four judges in their 70s who were chosen by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit, Judge Emilio Garza, a Republican appointee, will take senior status in August, a move that will open a seat while Garza takes a smaller caseload. Two Reagan picks in their 70s remain on the court.

Twelve Reagan appointees now in their 70s remain on circuit appeals courts or, in the case of Scalia and Kennedy, the Supreme Court.

Republican presidents, in recent decades, have been more aggressive than Democrats in filling those seats with younger, more like-minded lawyers.

Many nominees of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were in their early 40s, some even in their 30s, and with reputations as bold conservatives. By contrast, Obama has frustrated some liberal interest groups mainly by favoring older nominees over younger ones who might be the Democratic equivalents of some of the Reagan and Bush picks. Obama’s two youngest appeals court nominees, Goodwin Liu and Caitlin Halligan, were stymied by Republican filibusters in the Senate.

The average age of Obama-nominated appeals court judges is more than 55 years old, higher than any president’s going back to Jimmy Carter, according to the liberal interest group Alliance for Justice. The age of these judges matters in an era when presidents regularly look to the circuit appeals courts as the pool for Supreme Court candidates. Younger judges have a chance to develop a record that presidents can examine, yet still be young enough to be considered for the high court.

Alito and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas all became appellate judges in their early 40s. Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, and Justice Elena Kagan, a Democrat, would have been on the appeals court in Washington before their 40th birthdays had senators not blocked their confirmations. Roberts had to wait another decade before becoming an appeals court judge, while Kagan is the only justice who did not serve as an appellate judge.

Obama’s picks have yet to surprise anyone with their decisions, said Levey, head of the conservative interest group. “So Obama’s liberal critics can rest assured that if he’s re-elected, his transformation of the appeals courts will make a big difference in the law.”

Party labels do not always foretell a case’s outcome. During recent challenges to the Obama administration’s health care overhaul, Republican appeals court judges in Cincinnati and Washington cast deciding votes upholding the law, while a Democratic appointee in Atlanta voted to strike down the requirement that most people buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Adverse Events, Inc. (AEI) is the only provider of up-to-the-minute, critical, potentially life-saving information regarding side effects associated with FDA-approved prescription medications. AEI has created a unique set of online tools that are optimized to provide un-paralleled access to adverse event information on over 4,000 drugs, in an easy to understand and navigate format. AEI’s tools give control over treatment plans back to patients and their doctors, while providing an immediate view of potential trends and problems in the drug industry to pharmaceutical, healthcare, insurers, financial institutions and media.

RxFilter™ is a proprietary 17-step data refinement process developed by AdverseEvents, Inc. that standardizes and normalizes the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (AERS) database. Combining complex computer algorithms with hands-on data analysis by highly trained researchers, the RxFilter process is the most thorough optimization procedure ever applied to the FDA’s drug safety database. It accurately measures and tracks adverse events associated with medications reported to the FDA.

Similarly, The Atlantic reported that “federal lawyers in court are now quietly trying to expand the US government’s legal immunity from exposure to medical malpractice claims” by military families. It notes that the same federal judge hearing the German case is scheduled to hear another medical malpractice case involving the Jacksonville naval hospital, over the death of the newborn son of a pair of active duty military personnel. There the government argues that the birth “was ‘incident’ to his parents’ military service, thus subject to Feres immunity, and that the case must be dismissed long before trial.” The plaintiffs’ lawyer in both cases “suggested the new argument seeking to bar lawsuits linked to dependents may be an effort to reduce government spending.”

From the American Association for Justice press release.

Ask doctors what concerns them most, and chances are they’ll say, “medical malpractice.” A recent New England Journal of Medicine study found that 75% of doctors who practice psychiatry, pediatrics or family medicine will be sued during their career. Neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons and obstetricians have it worse, as virtually all of them will be sued before they finish practicing medicine.

The medical malpractice debate often pits physicians — who say the threat of lawsuits pushes them to order expensive, unnecessary tests — against lawyers who believe that lawsuits are needed to hold doctors accountable.

How can physicians avoid the courtroom? If an error was made, many insurers advise physicians not to talk to patients. That’s wrong. Physicians should disclose their mistake, apologize and, when appropriate and through mutual agreement, compensate injured patients.

For more than a decade, the University of Michigan Health System has used such a program, and its incidence of malpractice claims has since dropped 36%.

This approach should be spread nationwide. Actually, in 2005, then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama co-sponsored the National MEDiC Act, which among other things would have implemented apology laws throughout the U.S. Although the measure never became law, at least 36 states have passed legislation protecting apologies from being used against doctors in court.

Doctors also must create and maintain open lines of communication with patients, which is critical to preventing lawsuits in the first place. Doctors have to better explain, and patients better understand, that not all adverse outcomes are due to physician errors. Although the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 seminal report, “To Err is Human,” concluded that medical errors caused up to 100,000 patient deaths a year, 90% of those deaths were attributed to systemwide procedural failures at medical institutions.

There’s no panacea for eliminating mistakes, but a starting point is clearly communication. Better doctor-patient exchanges improve medicine, and when patients and their families are kept in the loop, they also are less likely to pursue a lawsuit. And, then, if errors are made, doctors should apologize and work with the patient and, when necessary, their lawyer, to find a compromise.

Transparency is the key to an open, trusting and healthy doctor-patient relationship.

From the American Association for Justice press release.

It could be worse though. In its initial filing Farmers actually said an increase of 52% could be justified, but the company was willing to settle for only 10%. What a racket!

The Texas Supreme Court has a long history of favoring corporate defendants over families and small businesses, according to a decade-long review of the Court’s decision making by Court Watch, a project of the non-profit Texas Watch Foundation.

Court Watch reviewed the 624 cases involving consumers decided by the Court between 2000 and 2010. The report, “Thumbs on the Scale: A Retrospective of the Texas Supreme Court, 2000-2010,” finds that the state’s high court for civil matters “has marched in lock-step to consistently and overwhelmingly reward corporate defendants and the government at the expense of Texas families.”

“The Texas Supreme Court is an activist, results-oriented body that over the last 10 years has developed into a safe haven for corporate defendants at the expense of individuals, families, and small business owners,” said Alex Winslow, director of Court Watch. “The statistics speak for themselves. The court’s pro-defendant ideology can not be disputed.”