A male psychology professor was demonstrating that women and men think and communicate differently. He said, if you ask a man, “That’s a good looking suit. Where did you get it?” you’ll get an answer something like “At Patrick James.” If you ask a woman, she’ll answer, “Do you like it?” If you ask the same question a second time, you might get, “I like it too.” A woman once explained to me the thinking the professor missed. The responses could mean any or all of the following: “Why should I tell you where I bought it?” “The type of store is rather personal.” “It may give you a clue as to price.” “There may be a variety of other reasons for an evasive response.” “Women just aren’t as simple as men.”

The Friday noon conferences at MSJ are non-medical for the summer. One of the insurance carriers was featured at one of them. He sat behind the podium so only half of us could see him at any one time–depending on which side he peered out.

Evidence Code 1157–which basically states that doctors can say terrible and reasonably unsubstantiated things about each other’s care without retribution under the guise of Peer Review–may soon become history. A California Court of Appeals has said that “Code 1157” does not protect against all discovery. Federal judges never did honor “Code ll57.” When Peer Review proceedings were discovered, the court always found the legal record flawed. It didn’t follow legal logic. That was because attorneys were not allowed to be in the hearing with their client physicians to protect their rights. When physicians practice law without a license, the arguments almost never hold judicial muster. That shouldn’t be surprising. When lawyers practice medicine without a license, the treatment is also flawed. Is it time that we put our physician/ attorney hostilities aside and have attorneys fully represent us in all legal or pseudo-legal or quasi-legal proceedings? Maybe physicians should quit working at cross-purposes.

Overheard in the staff room. If we close McClellan AFB but keep the employees on the payroll, how does that decrease the federal budget or reduce our taxes?

The insurance carriers are making their rounds of private offices to see if we are complying with putting immunizations, problem lists, treatment plans, drug lists, etc. on special sheets that their reviewers can easily find. The fact that you may do it in a manner that actually facilitates your care of patients is irrelevant… Compliance without reason (except to control people) occurred in the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917. But they had a dictator at the helm. His successor was replaced 70 years later. Why are we, as physicians, trained in the scientific method of inquiry, being subjected to a forced compliance in a free society?

Lufthansa has been running a two page magazine ad which carried the caption, “It’s nice to know our mechanics train longer than some doctors.” I called the 1-800 number and three days later received a call from Frankfurt that their mechanics have up to 7 years of on the job training. I reminded them that OJT doesn’t come close. I haven’t seen the ad since.

The Wall Street Journal Sports Section had its first swimsuit issue. Not the type that stimulates your hormones, but the type that responds to the secretion of catecholamines. With swim records being won in fractions of a second, they were presenting the worlds fastest swim suits, now a $600 million market.

The price of adding to internists’ liability has just decreased. Hospital reimbursement of ECG interpretation is headed downward again. For a projected five dollars (or nine) to read an ECG, you can have your name added to the liability of a hospitalized patient. If there is a lawsuit and the patient is able to convince the jury that you are in some minuscule way culpable, you may have your name added to the prestigious national data bank registry. So be sure to read those ECG’s in the “first doctor available” box.

Are we like the man who was driving along the country side and was totally lost, but didn’t mind, since he was making such good time?