Nationwide Cap on Medical Malpractice Suits?
I feel justified in posting this topic because President Bush is in Scranton, PA, my hometown, this morning to discuss the issue at the University of Scranton. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/bush.malpractice.ap/index.html"; target="_blank">CNN</a> reports on the story today. A cap on jury awards for medical malpractice suits is nothing more than a political move designed to appease the insurance industry. It's even further politicized by the fact that Bush refused to invite Governor-Elect Ed Rendell to discuss the issue alongside him. Gov. Rendell is also in town to discuss the issue. In addition to that, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer responded to criticism of the President's plan by echoing a similar statement about people "watching what they say." Once again, he condemned the notion of opposition to the President by noting that "that type of division is not helpful."
As far as the plan itself is concerned, I find any cap a slap in the face to those who were the victim of medical malpractice. I read a quote that said "what do people need millions for?" Well let me tell you: These people aren't going to Disneyland. They're trying to recoup the same ordinary standard of living they had before. And they know it will take a lot of money in prescription drugs, operations, rehabilitation to even come close.
Furthermore, how exactly does a limit stop rising malpractice rates for physicians? What is there to stop insurance companies from raising rates? The plan just won't do what it's intended to do. All it will do is put another few billion bucks back into the hands of Eli Lilly and insurance companies.
What do you think about it?
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
As far as the plan itself is concerned, I find any cap a slap in the face to those who were the victim of medical malpractice. I read a quote that said "what do people need millions for?" Well let me tell you: These people aren't going to Disneyland. They're trying to recoup the same ordinary standard of living they had before. And they know it will take a lot of money in prescription drugs, operations, rehabilitation to even come close.
Furthermore, how exactly does a limit stop rising malpractice rates for physicians? What is there to stop insurance companies from raising rates? The plan just won't do what it's intended to do. All it will do is put another few billion bucks back into the hands of Eli Lilly and insurance companies.
What do you think about it?
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
Comments
[quote] In New Jersey, doctors are planning a partial work stoppage next month to protest soaring malpractice premiums. Surgeons at several West Virginia hospitals walked off the job in protest January 1, but most have returned as a reform bill moves through the state legislature.
In Pennsylvania, scores of hospitals earlier this month narrowly dodged a mass walkout by doctors protesting high insurance costs, which more than doubled last year to as high as $200,000 for some physicians. <hr></blockquote>
now, the cap DOES NOT include capping actual lost wages and medical expenses. it only limits the "pain and suffering" damage, and caps punative damages. it also cuts down on the amount that attorneys can get from these lawsuits.
sorry, but when you've got hundreds of doctors ready to leave their profession due to high insurance rates, something needs to be done about them. i guess the question is whether or not these huge settlements are driving up insurance costs. i think they are, so capping them would make a huge difference in premiums.
For someone in PA, I can't believe you don't realize what a crisis we are in. Limiting pain and suffering awards will help insurance compnaies lower premiums by reducing awards to plantiffs in these areas only. Bush did the same thing in Texas, and it worked superbly. The limits are now at about 1,000,000 for these types of damages in TX.
Once again, your ridiculous hatred of the administration shows. You will believe anything the opposition says. Whether it is Bush the anti-environmentalist or Bush the idiot, or Bush the war monger, you will believe it.
Oh, and BTW: I voted for Rendell. Beat that with a stick.
<strong>sorry, but when you've got hundreds of doctors ready to leave their profession due to high insurance rates, something needs to be done about them. i guess the question is whether or not these huge settlements are driving up insurance costs. i think they are, so capping them would make a huge difference in premiums.</strong><hr></blockquote>People go on strike all the time. Didn't you say about a teacher strike recently that the strikers should be fired?
Let 'em leave, there'll be plenty of physicians to take their place. These guys can get jobs as teachers or something.
And of course insurance payouts increase insurance costs. But the way to fix it is for doctors to stop engaging in malpractice. Criminals increase prison costs too. Should we cap prison time to reduce costs?
What role do high jury awards play in this problem beyond the contention already established that higher awards guarantee higher premiums?
"I don't know..I'm asking"- Pscates
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
At least you put it in quotes...
<strong>People go on strike all the time. Didn't you say about a teacher strike recently that the strikers should be fired?
Let 'em leave, there'll be plenty of physicians to take their place. These guys can get jobs as teachers or something.
And of course insurance payouts increase insurance costs. But the way to fix it is for doctors to stop engaging in malpractice. Criminals increase prison costs too. Should we cap prison time to reduce costs?
lol, i said the teachers should stop bitching, not get fired.
for the rest of it, the problem is that there aren't that many doctors to fill in if these folks strike. it's not easy to replace 200-300 physicians at a moments notice within a single state. would you really want some second year intern operating on your heart because the regular doctor walked out? i sure as hell wouldn't.
as for doctors not "engaging in malpractice", that's the entire problem here. you CAN'T expect a doctor to NEVER make a mistake. doctors are human. if a surgery is 95% successful, that still means that 1 out of 20 people will be screwed. with all of the people on the operating table every day, it's impossible to expect there to be no mistakes.
the problem occurs when ANY mistake you make is going to cost you millions in malpractice. when a doctor's insurance costs are hundreds of thousands a year, they'll end up losing money by working. what in the hell do you think is going to happen then.
you can't expect anyone to take 7 years of schooling and lose money because of what they have to pay out in insurance costs.
as for lost wages, it sounds like you can sue for lost wages, which would include a reasonable stab at future earnings. (if i read that right)
Did you really ask this Shawn?
Fellowship
<strong>
the problem occurs when ANY mistake you make is going to cost you millions in malpractice. </strong><hr></blockquote>
See, but this "solution" hurts the real cases and rewards those doctors that truly screw up. You need judicial reform to fix the problem you're talking about. Limiting the amount rewarded in a case does nothing. Those that weren't truly harmed will stil sue anyway, since the capped amount is still a chunk of change. The cap will in no way deter false claims.
It will however completely harm individuals that have already been completely harmed by the medical system.
This is a move by President Bush that will benefit the insurance industry. Those who support jury award caps must admit that much is true. Who should we be protecting here- the industry or the patients? I completely symphathize with doctors who have to put up with these insurance companies that seek to gouge everyone to make a profit.
1) The insurance industry controls virtually every aspect of the American health-care system.
2. It is forcing doctors to pay for recent investment losses
3. Even in states with caps, insurance premiums are rising fast.
"Bush says caps will lower doctors premiums, but experience in states with caps has shown - and insurers and tort "reformers" admit - that caps and tort "reform" won't lower doctors' premiums. In California, which limits non-economic damages to $250,000, the average actual premium is $27,570, eight percent higher than the average of all states that have no caps on non-economic damages. Medical Liability Monitor, 2001. Malpractice premiums in California increased by 190% during the first 12-years following enactment of the $250,000 MICRA cap. It took California's Proposition 103 - insurance reform - to lower and stabilize malpractice premium rates."
-ATLA
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>First of all:
1) The insurance industry controls virtually every aspect of the American health-care system.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I disagree,
The drug companies run the show. My grandmother on my mothers side has told me many stories how she can not get a good doctor that will actually help her with what she really needs.
What do I mean by this? The doctors try to prescribe to her "new" drugs that she does not need. Why would a doctor do this? Answer: because the docter will get a kickback of one form or another. The Drug industry is out there in great force trying to buy off doctors to prescribe their drugs. Even when a patient receives a drug they do not need who pays? The Insurrance company. Who benefits? the Drug companies and the currupt doctors that are out there who know in return for pushing these many drugs will in turn receive pay-backs. This is the real story about who has control of the health care system in America. I am all for the free market but this business of the drug companies handing out this candy to doctors to sell drugs that patients do not need is a SCAM!
I hope we can unload this extortion from the system.
As for the judgements being awarded to some of the cases they are excessive to say the least.
I would not want for example for Roofing contractors to extort far more than is really needed from insurrance companies either. Let's say a hail storm comes to an area and the Roofing business decides to stick it to the insurrance companies to profit with high profit margins. Selling people needing a replaced roof more charges than were really needed simply to extort more money from the insurrance companies. This is just as wrong. We the consumer pay. I am not saying I am supporting the insurrance companies with a blind eye turned to every detail of cost and benefit payout but I will say that if we let the system get abused we will be the ones who pay or even worse we will not have access to insurrance. Be it medical or home owners etc.
Fellowship
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
"The Consumer Federation of America reports that medical malpractice premiums comprise only 0.59 percent of national health care costs - so even eliminating medical liability altogether would do little to reduce health care costs. Malpractice Suits Not Driving Medical Costs Up, Says Group, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 5, 1999, at E3."
Also, the issue of excessive jury awards:
"Juries are competent and conservative, and jury verdicts tend to be consistent with judgments of neutral medical experts.
"The assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injured plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case . . . have been made about malpractice juries in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Yet, research shows no support for these claims."
-Medical Negligence, the Litigation Process and Jury Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Cases: Implications for Indiana, Neil Vidmar, Ph.D., Russell M. Robinson II Professor of Law at Duke Law School, December 2, 2002."
"A 1992 comparison of jury verdicts and the reviews of insurance company-hired doctors showed that jury verdicts tended to be "consistent with" the doctors' assessments of medical records. The Influence of Standard of Care and Severity of Injury on the Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims"
-Taragin et al, 117 Annals of Internal Medicine 780 (1992).
The weird thing is that the more Medecine is becoming efficient , the more trials there is.
In the early XX century medecine cure (almost) nothing but doctors where respected. In 2003 medecine cure many things but doctors are less respected and are implied often in trials.
When you do your job, in the best way you can, be implied in trials is terrible. I have no excuse for a doctor who is drunk, but medecine is a human field and thus subject to error or unexpected reactions. For example the way a wound cure, differ from a people to another. What worked fined on 100 people, can turn bad for the 101 th even without any well known factor of complication (like tobacco).But when you do your job, you do not accept to be considered like a criminal, and to be sued. My naive conception of life, is that if you are honest, you will never have problems with justice. This statement is wrong in the medical aera : you work so you can be sued.
Helping people victims of medical errors or complications is fine (solidarity) but someone have to pay for this. Insurance pays for trials, doctors pays for insurances and peoples pay more for doctors. But there is a limit to this system, a point where it collapse. Doctors must be perfects , but software have the right to suck completely (you cannot sue a company for bugs).
BRussel , i know you must prabily joking :
[quote] People go on strike all the time. Didn't you say about a teacher strike recently that the strikers should be fired?
Let 'em leave, there'll be plenty of physicians to take their place. These guys can get jobs as teachers or something.
And of course insurance payouts increase insurance costs. But the way to fix it is for doctors to stop engaging in malpractice. Criminals increase prison costs too. Should we cap prison time to reduce costs?
<hr></blockquote>
yes let'em leave their jobs, you will find plenty of physicians from ? (insert your proposition here). One day of strike of all the MD of a countrie will be a disaster (that's why doctors do not do real strikes). You cannot replace MD so easily. Before becoming a plastic surgeon in the private, it asked me 14 years. It will ask a long time to replace me (even if everypoeple can be replaced).
Concerning malpractice, doctors are humans and thus subject to failure, foolish doctors should be fired (and are a shame for the profession), but if you fire each doctors that have made a malpractice you should better eliminate medecine. In the same way , you should eliminate all judges, all governements , and more generally all people in charge. By this way it will the end of all malpractices, and the beginning of a new aera : non-practice. This is the apology of a new thing : the apology of not having any responsability.
I really know some friends (and me included) who at a point of their life wanted to leave surgery because of trials. Surgery is a mervellous job, but sometimes the pressure is too high.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
Medical errors are a much worse problem than physicians paying lots of insurance. And there are plenty of physicians available. Everyone wants to be a doctor because it is the highest-paying single profession in the US.
back on topic
Lawyers are for the most part greedy dirt bag whore ****ing pricks. Anyhting that limits their greed is considered a "slap in the face" to someone else
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
don't discount pain and suffering...it is very real and lasts a lifetime....that $250,000 dollar lifetime limit is probably as much as GW and his wife spent on beer and shoes when they got their 12 million windfall....what we really need is the creation of a job of professional jurors...any "joe" sitting at home that couldn't find a way out of jury duty is probably not the best person to fill that job...trained and paid people to help listen, think and make sound judgements is the way to go...g
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
not sure where you live....we have a hard time finding doctors, and an even harder time keeping doctors...and try finding pediatricians....they are paid the least, so few want to go into it....most people are going into law or business now....GW and his CEO buddies have shown that it doesn't matter if you do a good job or if the company makes money or if you keep people working, you will make your millions even if the company folds....so it is best to be the top dog....doctors have less and less say, less and less control...and, as a result, fewer and fewer people are going into medicene....g
Scott [quote] Lawyers are for the most part greedy dirt bad whore ****ing pricks. Anyhting that limits their greed is considered a "slap in the face". <hr></blockquote>
substitute "CEOs", "Politicans" or any of a variety of professions for "Lawyer"...they all work in that sentence....
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>