"In 2000, the U.S. Institute of Medicine reported that up to 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors in hospitals alone."

Eric do you understand the methodology of the report? Did you read the report? Do you understand that the report was (and is) considered controversial in the medical community? Have you read any of the other associated Dr. comments and reports from that era (1999-2000). Do you understand one of the lead authors of the report
(Dr Leape) has built (actually rebuilt) his career from the report such that subsequent articles pointing out flaws in the study have resulted in terse (and at times not well explained) responses? Nothing harder than trying to discuss with an academic a view that has made there career.
I am not saying the report is wrong eric, I am saying there where flaws in the methodology and the sad fact is you and most of the lay non-medical public have no clue as to what I am talking about. It is sexier (and better for business right eric) to just quote a report that furthers your cause then to acutally understand the methodology and corresponding conclusions. A little homework eric. The following article from JAMA gives a different view of the subject. Why don't you read it.

Estimating hospital deaths due to medical error. Preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA Vol 286, 415-420 (2001).
 

The IOM report was cited favorably in a 9/6/07 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine;
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/10/960?query=TOC

And by Medicare (May, 2007)
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=1863

And that was only with a couple minutes searching. So I am not the only one who cites the report.

I'm aware that the results come from extrapolation, and that therefore the numbers are obviously estimates.
 

Eric:
Read the reference.
 

The reference (which is available online) points to a variety of problems in looking at the data, not the least of which is that reviewers often don't agree. The problems they point out are inherent in trying to do this kind of study. They don't say that the results are wrong, just difficult to take as gospel. (Nor do they suggest a better way of measuring.) I've always assumed as much given the very broad range of the IOM study, saying that the range is 44,000 to 98,000. That is an awful big range.

I would add that I deal with many of the same factors in medical malpractice suits. Sometimes documentation is missing or self-serving making analysis difficult. Sometimes the issue of causation is predominant (OK, we screwed up, but it didn't matter). Sometimes multiple experts look at the exact same thing and come to different conclusions.

I think the study, which is still cited authoritatively in many places even if it isn't perfect, does a good job though at pointing out a big problem that often gets glossed over.
 

Eric
You are clearly not reading the article critically. About who "cites" the article. The reason should be obvious. The lay press is interested in sexy sound bites for readership numbers. The simple fact is that the second article is in JAMA. A top medical journal. Don't you find it curious why IOM's report is cited repeatedly yet this article is rarely? This issue is not even close to being black and white. I am sorry you don't understand the implications.