Reform Torts to Bring Malpractice Insurance Down

[GHook93]

A huge part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the high cost of law suits in America. You can thank lawyers like John Edwards for that.

Here is my solution:
(1) Cap all negligence lawsuits at $250K
(2) For more damages than the cap you must get punitive (which are very hard to get). But only for gross negligence and intentional torts
(3) Allow for defense attorney fees for frivilous lawsuits
(4) Allow for very swift and strict sanctions for frivilous lawsuits.

 

[midcan5]

Every single thing I have read on this counters that argument. Tort is a meaningless diversion from the real issues of healthcare cost.

The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker, an excerpt

'What do we know?"

"First, we know from the California study, as confirmed by more recent, better publicized studies, that the real problem is too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. Most people do not sue, which means that victims—not doctors, hospitals, or liability insurance companies—bear the lion’s share of the costs of medical malpractice.

Second, because of those same studies, we know that the real costs of medical malpractice have little to do with litigation. The real costs of medical malpractice are the lost lives, extra medical expenses, time out of work, and pain and suffering of tens of thousands of people every year, the vast majority of whom do not sue. There is lots of talk about the heavy burden that “defensive medicine” imposes on health costs, but the research shows this is not true.

Third, we know that medical malpractice insurance premiums are cyclical, and that it is not frivolous litigation or runaway juries that drive that cycle. The sharp spikes in malpractice premiums in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s are the result of financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry, not sudden changes in the litigation environment...."

continued

 

[toomuchtime_]

A huge part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the high cost of law suits in America. You can thank lawyers like John Edwards for that.

Here is my solution:
(1) Cap all negligence lawsuits at $250K
(2) For more damages than the cap you must get punitive (which are very hard to get). But only for gross negligence and intentional torts
(3) Allow for defense attorney fees for frivilous lawsuits
(4) Allow for very swift and strict sanctions for frivilous lawsuits.

While I agree that tort reform with respect to medical malpractice is essential, I think your plan goes too far in some areas and not far enough in others.

If some one becomes an invalid because of medical negligence, the resulting expenses over a lifetime could come to much more than $250,000, and I believe they should be fully compensated for these expenses. On the other hand, I would impose caps on awards for emotional distress and get rid of punitive damages in favor of suspending or revoking medical licenses for negligent or careless doctors. Losing your license to practice medicine is a much harsher penalty than having to pay higher malpractice insurance rates, and it punishes only the negligent doctors and not those who are innocent.

While high malpractice insurance rates do increase the cost of health care and health insurance, defensive medicine causes even more harm. In recent survey in Massachusetts, doctors reported that between 18% and 28% of the "tests, procedures, referrals and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations were ordered for defensive reasons" at a combined cost of $1.4 billion a year. If we were to extrapolate these results - only eight specialties and seven tests and procedures were surveyed - over all the doctors and tests, procedures, referrals, etc. in the entire country for defensive reasons, the total cost would come to at least $100 billion a year and perhaps, according to one estimate, $200 billion a year. If we did nothing else to improve our health care system but institute tort reform that led doctors to reduce their practice of defensive medicine, we could significantly cut health care costs across all private and public plans and make access to health insurance affordable to some who now can't afford it.

MASSMED | MMS Survey Examines Defensive Medicine

 

[editec]

A huge part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the high cost of law suits in America.

Prove it.

I say that because I know you cannot.

What percentage of the entire HC costs stem from lawsuits or the cost to insure the HC establishment?

Do you actuallly know?

Of course you don't.

 

[GHook93]

A huge part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the high cost of law suits in America.

Prove it.

I say that because I know you cannot.

What percentage of the entire HC costs stem from lawsuits or the cost to insure the HC establishment?

Do you actuallly know?

Of course you don't.

I have meeting the rest of the day! But I will take that challenge! Hit me back on this!

 

[veritas]

Here is my solution:
(1) Cap all negligence lawsuits at $250K
(2) For more damages than the cap you must get punitive (which are very hard to get). But only for gross negligence and intentional torts
(3) Allow for defense attorney fees for frivilous lawsuits
(4) Allow for very swift and strict sanctions for frivilous lawsuits.

$250k wouldn't even make a dent, especially after lawyers have stepped on it. There should be a cap on attorneys fees. The insurance companies can fight all day because they have lawyers on the payroll. They'd rather pay their lawyers than pay claims. And they have both sides of the transaction, your health insurance AND the malpractice insurance.

John Edwards was a private lawyer.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

What about cheaper medical education? Besides tort costs, another thing I've heard is that it's just too pricey to become a doctor. In other developed countries doctors may not make as much, but since university is usually free then doctors also don't have to pay gigantic loans. Just putting it out there; maybe it's something to look into.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What about cheaper medical education? Besides tort costs, another thing I've heard is that it's just too pricey to become a doctor. In other developed countries doctors may not make as much, but since university is usually free then doctors also don't have to pay gigantic loans. Just putting it out there; maybe it's something to look into.

If you agree to serve for a time in one of the military services, you can get a free medical school education and if you sign up to serve in the National Health Service for a few years, likewise, they will pay for your medical education. In effect, you pay them back by working for less than you might make in private practice.

 

[Maple]

the top of the reform list. Unfortunately, Obama is against reform, he is a lawyer and the trail lawyer's lobby has bought off the democratic party.

This action alone would same billions of dollars a year in health care costs. Obama is against this which tells me clearly that this is not about reforming the health care industry it's about total control over us and our loss of freedom of choice. He is a SOCIALIST.

 

[Maple]

The AMA booed President Obama when he stated that he was against Tort reform.

Doctors will run every test known to man and sometimes twice on the same patient to make sure of a correct diagnosis and treatment because of their fear of lawsuits. The mal-practice insurance for some of these physicians runs well over $100.000 per year, they pass that cost back on to the consumer, you, in the form of higher fees for service. That's an easily found fact.

 

[manu1959]

my malpractice insurance costs 300k per year ...... guess who gets to pay for it in the end....

on top of that i also have to carry workers comp and general liabilty.....

end of the day 500k per year.....

 

[Maple]

the lack of tort reform is doing to the cost of health insurance and health care.

Healthcare Business News



Alan Miller



Let’s include medical malpractice in healthcare debateBy Alan Miller

Posted: July 7, 2009 - 11:57 am EDT


As the national discussion over healthcare picks up momentum, most of the debate is focused on who will provide medical insurance and how it will be paid. While medical insurance is an important issue, we should all hope that the government works to lower the cost of healthcare. One important step would be tort reform of medical malpractice lawsuits.

Without much-needed reforms to limit jury awards for noneconomic damages, the cost of malpractice insurance will continue to rise. That, in turn, will increase the exodus of physicians from the particularly vulnerable specialties (obstetrics, orthopedics and neurosurgery). Consequently, it will become difficult for Americans to secure treatment and more expensive when they can.

We need a uniform, national solution to the problem. It is time for this country to develop a plan that sets limits on medical malpractice awards and adopts that plan nationwide.

Over the past several years, 30 states have imposed their own limits on noneconomic damage awards in malpractice lawsuits. While those reforms have produced positive results in the states that have adopted them, neighboring states that have not enacted reforms have continued to suffer.

Physicians from states without malpractice reform have often abandoned or limited their practices or moved to states with lower rates for malpractice insurance. In either case, the result is that residents of states that have not enacted tort reform have fewer physicians to provide treatment, and have higher expenses for their healthcare.

Tort reform does work. The state of Texas enacted malpractice reform legislation in 2003 that limits jury awards for noneconomic damages to $250,000. Since then, physicians have seen their malpractice insurance rates drop significantly. A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association showed that 90 percent of physicians in the state said they were more comfortable practicing medicine in Texas now than they were before the tort reform was enacted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement | Your Ad Here


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




In addition, the Texas survey showed that since reform went into effect, the number of malpractice lawsuits has declined, physicians are able to purchase new equipment and expand the procedures they offer and are more willing to treat high-risk patients. The results in Texas clearly show that medical malpractice reform does work.

Malpractice reform will do more than lower costs for physicians. It will help lower the overall cost of healthcare for everyone and help physicians provide better care for patients.

A recent survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society and the University of Connecticut Health Center revealed that among physicians surveyed, 83% reported that they had practiced defensive medicine. That study showed that an average of 28% of tests, procedures, referrals and consultations were ordered for defensive reasons, for fear of lawsuits. The study also concluded that 13% of all hospitalizations ordered by physicians were ordered for defensive purposes.

Such care is expensive as well as unnecessary. Defensive medicine—when physicians order more tests or procedures than medically necessary in order to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit—has been estimated to cost between $100 billion and $178 billion per year, according to a study by Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan of Stanford University. That is an additional $1,700 to $2,000 paid every year by the average American family for unnecessary healthcare.

In states such as California, which enacted limits on jury awards for malpractice in 1975, healthcare costs are between 5% and 9% less than other states because physicians in California and other states with similar reforms do not practice defensive medicine.

A common argument from trial lawyers and others opposed to reform is that the possibility of large jury awards acts as an incentive for doctors to provide better quality care and avoid medical errors. Experience has shown that is not the case, as the incidence of malpractice has not increased in states that have enacted reform. A 2006 study by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that in about 25% of malpractice lawsuits that resulted in jury awards, there was no identifiable medical error.

Furthermore, large awards for pain and suffering do not compensate plaintiffs as much as juries may think they do. The study also showed that for every dollar awarded to a plaintiff in a malpractice suit, 54 cents went to lawyers, expert witnesses, courts and other administrative expenses.

Tort reform has long been seen as a partisan issue, with Republicans firmly in support and Democrats opposed. Efforts to deal with the problem during President George W. Bush’s first term, for example, were met with harsh opposition from Democrats and trial lawyers.

Recently, however, the partisan divide appears to be shifting. In a speech to business leaders in March, President Barack Obama signaled a willingness to discuss the issue when he said that ideas that can reduce the cost of healthcare, such as “medical liability issues—I think all those things have to be on the table.”

In addition, Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Ore.) has introduced a bill that includes incentives to encourage states to enact malpractice reforms.

“I think it’s an essential piece for there to be enduring reform, reform that will stick and will get a significant bipartisan vote in the United States Senate,” Wyden said. Continued Republican support for tort reform, coupled with a new willingness among some Democrats to discuss the issue provides hope that the nation may finally be ready to tackle this problem. At a time when rising healthcare costs are putting a financial drain on families and businesses across America, national medical malpractice reform is essential for the future of our nation.

Alan Miller is chairman and chief executive officer of Universal Health Services, King of Prussia, Pa.




Related ArticlesTexas

 

[Maple]

For once, I agree with your statement on a cap on attorney's fees. That would certainly eliminate the ambulance chasers that have driven the cost of our health coverage to astronomical amounts.. Problem is that the trail lawyer lobbyists are in the back pocket of the democratic party, they will fight this real and true reform tooth and nail. Bush tried to get this done and it was turned down.

 

[jillian]

A huge part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the high cost of law suits in America. You can thank lawyers like John Edwards for that.

Here is my solution:
(1) Cap all negligence lawsuits at $250K
(2) For more damages than the cap you must get punitive (which are very hard to get). But only for gross negligence and intentional torts
(3) Allow for defense attorney fees for frivilous lawsuits
(4) Allow for very swift and strict sanctions for frivilous lawsuits.

Malpractice cases are a teeny, tiny percentage of insurance company expenditures. Before a malpractice case is brought you have to already go through a panel that says whether or not there is a meritorious claim. And it costs on average of $50,000 to pursue a malpractice case. It is the rare lawyer who would pursue a non-case because it's too expensive. we're not talking about a $1,000 slip and fall.

The whole "poor doctors" thing is BS... it's the insurance companies once again trying to pull strings so they don't have to pay for injuries.

Let me know when there's a limit on the damages doctors can do...

then we'll chat about so-called "tort reform".

BTW, I think it's really important to know your subject matter before you try to "solve" a problem...

because there IS no problem... except to insurance company lobbyists.

 

[jillian]

For once, I agree with your statement on a cap on attorney's fees. That would certainly illiminate the ambulance chasers that have driven the cost of our health coverage to astronomical amounts.. Problem is that the trail lawyer lobbyists are in the back pocket of the democratic party, they will fight this real and true reform tooth and nail. Bush tried to get this done and it was turned down.

that's "eliminate"... and as i said before. "ambulance chasers" are not the norm in the med mal area... because the cases are too expensive to pursue.

why do you want people to be hurt and have no recourse?

 

[jillian]

the lack of tort reform is doing to the cost of health insurance and health care.

how 'bout a link?

 

[veritas]

I don't think you want to get into tort reform before you recognize that the corporations and fatcats would just love that. Granted there are some doozies out there, but you wouldn't really want to give up the ability to go after an entity or person and effect a huge award which may result in advances in public safety and good legislation.

Edward's most famous case had to do with a dangerous pool drain. The huge award made non economic damages, [not at equity] a reality. The pool drains were prevented from being sold and they had to go back and retrofit the ones that were in place. Ralph Nader made seatbelts a reality and other car safety features came from that as well. Right now, the drug companies would like nothing more than to have tort reform to shield them from any and all liability, and any lawsuits. I wouldn't be giving away my ability to utilize due process quite so fast.

 

[Maple]

I provided the article- just google tort reform. There are many there.

 

[Maple]

Are you not an attorney Jillian???? Could it be that you have a personal interest in the outcome of this reform?

 

[Maple]

There would still be due process, it would only limit the amount of money for damages incured.