Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Lower Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, Lower Health Costs

doctor According to an article recently posted on Insurancenewnet.com, by the Associated Press (AP), “Health Negotiators Look At Malpractice Changes“, President Obama has begun to compromise on the need for alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits. Opponents to changing the malpractice system insist that malpractice reform will have an insignificant impact on lowering the cost of health care. I strongly disagree with this opinion. Tort reform is a major piece of the health reform puzzle and deserves ample attention as we work to achieve a better health care system.

Tort reform is not “The Answer” to the health care problem but to put your head in the sand like some legislators have on the issue is insanity. Most proponents of tort reform for medical malpractice believe (and this was echoed by President Obama in his speech last Wednesday) that fear of lawsuits drives doctors to perform unnecessary tests sometimes in redundancy in order to escape malpractice suits. How does the practice of over testing to protect against lawsuits not add to the ridiculous cost of health care in America?

There are three solutions outlined in the AP article that used in conjunction with one another may have a positive impact.

The first idea involves incentives to doctors and hospitals for “early disclosure” of mistakes and offering restitution outside of the court system.

The second idea involves creating a body of experts that would screen malpractice cases before they were allowed to go to trial in an effort to weed out frivolous lawsuits(according to the AP article this was enacted in Tennessee last year, malpractice lawsuits dropped 69% and malpractice premiums are estimated to drop 2.5% next year).

The third idea involves the creation of new court system specifically designed to handle malpractice cases. All judges that would preside in this court would have to be experienced in the medical field. The idea being that judges with medical backgrounds would be able to make more informed decisions with less emotional bias.

As I mentioned early tort reform is not the answer to the health care crisis. But it is my opinion that any and all avenues that may reduce the consumer cost of health care should be explored.

“If you’d like to talk about your Insurance Risk, contact me today. We can talk about your exposure, and begin our relationship!”

Thank you,

Ryan H.

Please subscribe below for the RyanHanley.com Weekly Post Roundup!

http://www.ryanhanley.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_48.png

http://www.ryanhanley.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_48.png

http://www.ryanhanley.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_48.png

http://www.ryanhanley.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_48.png

http://www.ryanhanley.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_48.png

http://www.ryanhanley.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/yahoobuzz_48.png

Posted by Ryan Hanley on Monday, September 14, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Filed under Health · Tagged with health care, health insurance, health reform, insurance, malpractice, medical malpractice

Gerry Oginski

I totally agree with John H. above. It's a refreshingly clear and concise viewpoint that more people should have.
John H.

Ryan,

I usually do not read, nor pay attention to the multitude of blogs that
enter my email each day. However, I must admit that your current
thoughts on medical malpractice reform caught my eye. First, I do not,
nor have I ever represented a Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action.
However, I am familiar with the laws in the State of New York and
believe your assessment, at least with respect to New York State and the
vast majority of other states in the country, is flawed.

First, the implementation of the plan quoted in the AP story is largely
law in New York State, with the exception of "specialized judges." In
New York, the law is so procedurally tilted in the doctor's favor, that
obtaining a medmal verdict is as difficult as it gets. The statute of
limitations is shortened and the Plaintiff has an absolute obligation to
call a medical professional with similar expertise as the Defendant and
offer proof that the Defendant deviated from what a reasonable doctor in
similar circumstances would have done. This standard is more
pro-Defendant than even the liability protection standard of "best
practices" quoted in the article.

Second, limiting or capping liability hurts individuals who are most
grievously injured in medmal cases and does nothing to eliminate
frivolity. If you are injured slightly as a result of malpractice or if
your claim was frivolous, you would not get above the cap in any event.
Statistically, the real value of medical malpractice payouts from
settlements and verdicts has not changed since the 70s. In states were
caps have been implemented, medical malpractice premiums have continued
to increase.

Finally, specialized judges are not the answer. Judges and juries hear
extremely complex matters including complex securities litigation and
technical patent and trademark issues. They typically, although there
are always exceptions, reach the correct conclusion.

I do not condone frivolity in the system, and I would welcome reforms
that are designed to prevent frivolity, however, I don't believe for a
second that this issue is being driven by a desire for more affordable
healthcare. Instead, doctors have been brainwashed into believing that
the boogeyman is the trial attorney when in actuality it is the
insurance producer. If the doctor does his job in accordance with best
practices, he should never be concerned of a lawsuit. If doctors
policed themselves the issue would be reduced because the bad apples
would be eliminated.

Sorry for the rant. It is probably a good thing I don't respond to more
of these things.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us '0 which is not a hashcash value.