Saturday, January 26, 2008

Freakonomics

Unintended, but entirely foreseeable consequences
Freakonomics

A few months ago, a prospective patient called the office of Andrew Brooks, a top-ranked orthopedic surgeon in Los Angeles. She was having serious knee trouble, and she was also deaf. She wanted to know if her deafness posed a problem for Brooks. He had his assistant relay a message: no, of course not; he could easily discuss her situation using knee models, anatomical charts and written notes.

The woman later called again to say she would rather have a sign-language interpreter. Fine, Brooks said, and asked his assistant to make the arrangements. As it turned out, an interpreter would cost $120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and the expense wasn’t covered by insurance. Brooks didn’t think it made sense for him to pay. That would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even before accounting for taxes and overhead.


Signed
So Brooks suggested to the patient that they make do without the interpreter. That’s when she told him that the Americans With Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) allowed a patient to choose the mode of interpretation, at the physician’s expense. Brooks, flabbergasted, researched the law and found that he was indeed obliged to do as the patient asked — unless, that is, he wanted to invite a lawsuit that he would probably lose. [continued]

If you continue reading 'Freakonomics,' you'll find the answer to this question: "How did the A.D.A. affect employment among the disabled?"  And how does all this tie in with the seven year sabbatical?  And what about "The Case of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker" You'll want to know, trust me.  But, once you do, you'll be like that guy who sees a new product and smacks himself in the head, muttering, "Hey, I thought of that 20 years ago."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Linkee brokee?

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Solly - try again.

Anonymous said...

Thankee!

Anonymous said...

And, OBTW, excellent article!

Unknown said...

The picture at the top of the post reminded me of this story:

http://tinyurl.com/2n3mof

The headline at that link is:

Smoking is Associated with Rectal Cancer

In which case, my only response would be: You're doing it wrong!

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.