Yesterday S.22 and S.23 were defeated in the Senate. This was a vote to permit this legislation capping non-economic damages at $250k to come to the floor only for open debate, NOT to provide Senate ratification of the bills to become law. As you can see below the liberals defeated the conservatives by not allowing the 60 necessary votes. I posted my thought in the OB/GYN section.

Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Not Voting Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Not Voting
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Not Voting Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

Yesterday S.22 and S.23 were defeated in the Senate. This was a vote to permit this legislation capping non-economic damages at $250k to come to the floor only for open debate, NOT to provide Senate ratification of the bills to become law. As you can see below the liberals defeated the conservatives by not allowing the 60 necessary votes. I posted my thought in the OB/GYN section.

Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Not Voting Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Not Voting
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Not Voting Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

The senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, MD, didn't vote.

Interesting that a physician wouldn't vote on this matter.

The senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, MD, didn't vote.

Interesting that a physician wouldn't vote on this matter.

Sometimes they will hold their vote until the end and wait to see what the outcome looks like. It seems as though this one wasnt close enough. Coburn, McCain and a few other (R)'s didnt vote, maybe after there were 40 'Nays' it was no longer relevant.

Only around 45 'Yea' votes

A Closer Look at Senate Med-Mal Bills

Marcia Coyle
The National Law Journal
May 3, 2006
Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions


Is it political grandstanding by Republican senators? Is it an effort to make Senate Democrats look bad? Is it a shot at genuine and fair "reform," or is it "Let the consumer be damned?"

Like the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes, medical malpractice liability legislation soon will be on the Senate floor. And the answer to each of the questions above is yes and no.

"I think it's an issue Republicans have a political advantage on," said Ted Frank, director of the Liability Project at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington.

"There's incentive to bring it up in that sense. I think it's something the Bush administration thinks they can win on and if they don't win, they can make political hay of it."

Two medical malpractice bills, expected to go directly from introduction to the Senate floor during "Health Week" this month, will not go through the usual committee process of hearings, amendments and committee vote, because "they would never pass" out of committee, said Jillian Aldebron, legislative counsel to Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group.

"This is purely political grandstanding," she said. "[Senate Republican leaders] want to say Democrats, who oppose the bills, are obstructionists. Right now it makes good talking points, good campaign politics. I can't see it going anywhere. But who knows?"

Supporters of medical malpractice liability legislation are trying to overcome what has been the biggest hurdle to enactment in the Senate -- caps on noneconomic damages, said Victor Schwartz of the Washington office of Kansas City, Mo.-based Shook, Hardy & Bacon and counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, which supports medical malpractice liability legislation.

"If there is very strong support from the public, votes change," he added. "But the current picture is they still have that big mountain to climb."

LATEST VERSION OF THE BILLS

But Schwartz and others who have lobbied for years on behalf of those changes believe that Senate supporters are moving higher up that mountain with their latest version of medical malpractice liability reform.

The National Law Journal obtained working drafts that show that the model for federal legislation is no longer California's law, but Texas' law, which was passed in 2003.

The bills also contain many features of earlier measures. They have limits on attorney contingency fees: 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered; 33 1/3 percent of next $50,000; 25 percent of next $500,000, and 15 percent of any amount larger than $600,000.

They also have time limitations on filing suits, requirements for expert witnesses and caps on punitive damages: two times the amount of economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater.

The fee limits apply regardless of whether recovery is by judgment, settlement, mediation, arbitration or other form of alternative dispute resolution.

"The bill has a lot of good ideas in it and it's one that's worth the time and effort of the Senate," said Schwartz. "They took a step forward by having some flexibility in the cap."

The main bill is S. 22, sponsored by Senator John Ensign, R-Nev., and styled "The Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006." The second bill, S. 23, sponsored by Senator Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and styled "Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act of 2006," has identical provisions, but is limited to obstetrical and gynecological services.

Under the bills, physician liability for noneconomic damages would be capped at $250,000, regardless of the number of physicians found liable. A health care institution's liability would be limited to $250,000 or up to $500,000 if more than one is held liable. The total amount of noneconomic damages that could be awarded would be $750,000.

IS CAP MISLEADING?

Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, USAction and other consumer watchdog groups involved in the debate contend that the $750,000 cap is misleading.

In a letter last week to all senators, the groups cite a recent study of closed medical malpractice claims reported to the Texas Department of Insurance over the period 1988 to 2002. The study found that 79.5 percent of claims named one or more physicians, 45.2 percent of claims named a hospital, and 9.7 percent of claims involved more than one hospital.

"Thus, in more than half of all claims, potential compensation for noneconomic damages would be capped at no more than $250,000," they conclude.

And the groups also dispute claims that the caps have resulted in lower insurance rates.

"Once the cap passed, instead of reducing premiums, major insurers petitioned the Texas Department of Insurance for rate hikes of up to 35% for doctors and 65% for hospitals," the letter claims. "Only after an outraged Texas legislature threatened to mandate rate cuts did insurers lower medical malpractice premiums."

Without that kind of political pressure, rates never go down, said Public Citizen's Aldebron. She added that rates across the country have stabilized, in states with and without damages caps.

The Texas law has had an impact on some patients' ability to get legal representation for their claims, Aldebron said. "That is one of the dirty secrets of caps. The ultimate goal of caps is to wipe out cases."

But Frank of the American Enterprise Institute, echoing other supporters of caps, said that "Unbounded noneconomic damages create all sorts of perverse incentives. It's a huge random element that is the opposite of justice."

He and Christian Shalgian, chairman of the Health Coalition on Liability & Access, agreed that Texas experienced real results from its reforms after it enacted a constitutional amendment in 2003 protecting those reforms from legal challenges.

Frank said that he would like to see something similar in the federal legislation. In a recent article attacking his opponents' argument that rate stability has undercut the need for liability reforms, Frank said that the question is whether this is a "fragile stability" or something more permanent.

"But given the evidence from the past, one cannot conclude the crisis is over and that the markets are stable, much less that liability reform was or will be a waste," he said.

Would be interesting to see a real attempt at this. I dont think any of us believe this one is such an attempt.

Interesting that the Nay votes were mostly from Democrats. Seems like once again everyone just votes within party lines. :rolleyes:

Interesting that the Nay votes were mostly from Democrats. Seems like once again everyone just votes within party lines. :rolleyes:

Yup. We can thank the democrats once again for making lives miserable for physicians.

Yup. We can thank the democrats once again for making lives miserable for physicians.
Yep.. the trial lawyers have them in their pockets.. :thumbdown

C H U M P S

Would be interesting to see a real attempt at this. I dont think any of us believe this one is such an attempt.

Isn't this the 5th to 6th attempt to get medical liability through the Senate?


Wook

according to an email sent to me by the acofp, Sen. McCain wasn't even present to vote.

"The vote on S. 22 was 48-42. 48 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and 39 Democrats and three Republicans voted against the bill. Ten Members did not vote.

Of the Members not voting on S. 22, Senators Burns, Brownback, Coburn and McCain have routinely supported comprehensive medical liability reform legislation. Their failure to cast a vote prevented the vote total from reaching the majority margin of 50 votes predicted. "

The vote on S. 23 was 49-44. Forty-nine Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and 41 Democrats and three Republicans voted against the bill. Seven Members did not vote.

Though Senator Coburn arrived in time to cast the last vote on S. 23, Senators Burns, Brownback and McCain were still not present when the vote was gaveled down, and S. 23 also fell short of the 50 votes predicted.

So? He wasnt there I know you are from AZ but... 10 others werent there either.. Should we discuss how many votes John Kerry attended? Or Hilary or any of the other morons we have in DC (on both sides of the aisle). Those people dont do anything productive outside of screw the taxpayers, collect too much money for the limited work they do and take too much vacation.

Rant over!

I am not sure regarding why but CSPAN indicated that 60 votes would be needed to move the legislation forward.

Look at the article people. Purely political posturing, which the Repub's knew wouldnt pass. Isnt it time for some real reform? Not just this weak attempt at lip service? If you or a loved one were injured by a doctors outright negligence, would you feel that 250K was adequate compensation?

Look at the article people. Purely political posturing, which the Repub's knew wouldnt pass. Isnt it time for some real reform? Not just this weak attempt at lip service? If you or a loved one were injured by a doctors outright negligence, would you feel that 250K was adequate compensation?


As long as every ounce of medical care was covered related to that so you didn't pay anything out of your pocket PLUS 250,000 grand! Which is what they're saying.

Absolutely that'd be enough.

Why do you suddenly deserve to be uber wealthy and become a millionaire because another human made a mistake or wronged you?

answer: you don't have the right to become wealthy.

later

Look at the article people. Purely political posturing, which the Repub's knew wouldnt pass. Isnt it time for some real reform? Not just this weak attempt at lip service? If you or a loved one were injured by a doctors outright negligence, would you feel that 250K was adequate compensation?

My understanding of non-economic damages is that the sum would be similar to "punitive" damages. Areas such as lost wages and other economic costs would NOT be affected by this bill. The result of this legislation, in its current form, would be to cap these types of costs at 250k. For example, if your mother is the CEO of a large corporation (>$1Mil salary) and has catastrophic sequelae as a result of her cholecystectomy, her lost salary as a result of the malpractice would be completely covered as it falls under "economic" costs.

As long as every ounce of medical care was covered related to that so you didn't pay anything out of your pocket PLUS 250,000 grand! Which is what they're saying.

Absolutely that'd be enough.

Why do you suddenly deserve to be uber wealthy and become a millionaire because another human made a mistake or wronged you?

answer: you don't have the right to become wealthy.

later


Really.



Understanding the types of medical mistakes that can and do happen, such as amputation of the wrong leg or missing obvious signs of acute MI, some of which result in death, and you think that damages should be capped? Im gonna be a doctor and will likely be sued at some point, but if I make the kind of blatant error that causes someone their life, Ill stand up and be held accountable.

The process needs reform. Physicians need better advocates. It is overly litigious and the physician has fewer rights than the plaintiff or the insurance carrier, but capping damages is not the way to go, its just what the insurance co's want you to think. (I completely agree with capping attorney fees, btw) But do you think premiums will go down as a result? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: This is a great hot button dems vs repubs issue, but thats all its become in the senate.

Id like to see you in a situation where you or your family was injured by true medical malpractice and then see if you thought it was okay if "just the medical bills were paid".

My understanding of non-economic damages is that the sum would be similar to "punitive" damages. Areas such as lost wages and other economic costs would NOT be affected by this bill. The result of this legislation, in its current form, would be to cap these types of costs at 250k. For example, if your mother is the CEO of a large corporation (>$1Mil salary) and has catastrophic sequelae as a result of her cholecystectomy, her lost salary as a result of the malpractice would be completely covered as it falls under "economic" costs.

I did read that, and thats certainly valid, but it also then bases punitive damages on economic damages? Your punitive is capped at 250K or 2X economic damages, whichever is greater? So the CEO gets millions in punitive damages in addition to the economic damages, while factory worker can get no more than 250K?

I guess thats cause rich people matter more.

This bill was nothing more than political posturing, republicans knew it would not pass.

Hey folks, let's not fall right into the insurance companies hands! There are so many better ways to control runaway malpractice. Some were mentioned above. Although I don't think capping attorney fees will help too much, it might help a little and it will surely make me smile.

I bet what is really a concern here is not the rare (go ahead, give a few anecdotal pieces of evidence as you flame away before even researching the topic) punitive damage that is so insane that it makes the paper, but the rise in malpractice premiums. There are many ways to solve this (especially when the proposals are created away from the Dems vs. Repubs tired environment). Two ways that I am in favor of:

1. Restructuring malpractice insurance: Repeat offenders should have greater premiums than docs who have never been found to be at fault. Analogy = driving. Car insurance starts out low and quickly escalates for infractions, even minor mistakes. A driver who has sixteen speeding tickets and a DWI arrest certainly pays more than a 55 yo driver with a clean record. If it was not that way, the public would have a fit. Why is there not the same system for docs? (I admit, my study of this is limited, so, if someone can show this to be the case, I will shut up and addend this post) I propose there is not the same system because the insurance companies would make so much less and because docs haven't investigated this (for whatever reason) like the public would. It is much easier to just yell about how the lawyers are in the pockets of the Dems. The insurance companies are just as powerful and the lawyers.

2. Professional regulation: The profession is ours. As true 'professionals' as classically defined, we are responsible for regulating our profession. The huge punitive damages are usually for extreme cases and against physicians who are repeat offenders that the medical profession has not previously reprimanded sufficiently (sorry, don't have the time to get the data to support it now). Licensing boards must punish repeat offenders and protect the public. This is not done. Until we take care of ourselves as professionals, someone else is going to do it (probably poorly).

You may think these two suggestions are the worst ever. Fine. I still hold to the idea that malpractice premiums can be controlled in ways other than capping punitive payouts, and therefore preventing large payouts when they are called for (admittedly, rarely). This just helps insurance companies make more $$. I highly doubt they are going to pass these savings on to docs. HA! Capping such payouts does not get at the problem of malpractice premiums. It only decreases emotional responses to huge payouts. Do you want to feel better off or be better off?

In 2003, Texas passed prop 12 which imposed a 250k on nonmedical damages. Here's a link to what has changed since the bill passed in relation to healthcare in Texas. http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=780

I will be the first to agree that political posturing is certainly a benefit of the Republicans to bring up such legislation, but limiting the ridiculous awards must be done. In the end, while the physician or hospital may go out of business, it is the American public who will pick up the bill for such non-sense in the form of reduced access and greater fragmentation of care.

The American health care myth that no amount of money can make up for a human life is simply false, and worse, it is detrimental to buy into such falsehood. If a person can be compensated for all economic damages and an amount for pain and suffering (in this case $250-750k) that many Americans will never see in their lifetime regardless how long they work, then that should be acceptable.

Our health system operates with a limited amount of dollars to go around for everyone. People receiving disproportionate shares need to understand what the consequences. How many lives could be saved or positively affected with the 18 billion that trial lawyers have taken in on malpractice fees, or the 100 million dollar awards for hot coffee burns at McDonalds.

Consider this... the Aetna CEO in recent years reported making ~33 million dollars in a single year (Forbes Magazine). The average CEO compensation in the healthcare sector is 7 million dollars (AFL-CIO). If that one CEO would "refund" 26 million dollars (thereby bringing his compensation to industry mean), using per capita figures of $6000/individual for healthcare in a year, an additional 4300 people would be afforded care that otherwise would have none. What magnitude of benefit could come from "health" of an additional 4300 people. Or is that yacht and mega investment portfolio more important?

I will be the first to agree that political posturing is certainly a benefit of the Republicans to bring up such legislation, but limiting the ridiculous awards must be done. In the end, while the physician or hospital may go out of business, it is the American public who will pick up the bill for such non-sense in the form of reduced access and greater fragmentation of care.

The American health care myth that no amount of money can make up for a human life is simply false, and worse, it is detrimental to buy into such falsehood. If a person can be compensated for all economic damages and an amount for pain and suffering (in this case $250-750k) that many Americans will never see in their lifetime regardless how long they work, then that should be acceptable.

Our health system operates with a limited amount of dollars to go around for everyone. People receiving disproportionate shares need to understand what the consequences. How many lives could be saved or positively affected with the 18 billion that trial lawyers have taken in on malpractice fees, or the 100 million dollar awards for hot coffee burns at McDonalds.

Consider this... the Aetna CEO in recent years reported making ~33 million dollars in a single year (Forbes Magazine). The average CEO compensation in the healthcare sector is 7 million dollars (AFL-CIO). If that one CEO would "refund" 26 million dollars (thereby bringing his compensation to industry mean), using per capita figures of $6000/individual for healthcare in a year, an additional 4300 people would be afforded care that otherwise would have none. What magnitude of benefit could come from "health" of an additional 4300 people. Or is that yacht and mega investment portfolio more important?

I just think that the whole 'tort reform' issue, unfortunately begins and ends with caps on malpractice and that this isnt the real problem but is like cutting your head off to clear up some pimples. Put forth some effort into restructuring the medical liability and legal system and enact punishments for frivolous lawsuits, make it easier for doctors to have rights and cap attorney fees. Find a way to eliminate the 'witness for hire' practice and allow for countersuit in cases of frivolity.

Unfortunately these all require effort, and neither side really wants to fix the situation. They just want to look good/make the other side look bad.

Really... Id like to see you in a situation where you or your family was injured by true medical malpractice and then see if you thought it was okay if "just the medical bills were paid".

Im sorry, but lost wages + medical bills + $250,000 sounds like plenty of money for someone to receive as a malpractice settlement.

Similarly, I dont think the spouse of a fat slob who ruined his knees and heart by overeating and underexercising for years has the right to seven to eight figure punitive settlements from pharma companies because he/she just so happened to be taking Viox before they had their 3rd or 4th MI.

Im sorry, but lost wages + medical bills + $250,000 sounds like plenty of money for someone to receive as a malpractice settlement.

Similarly, I dont think the spouse of a fat slob who ruined his knees and heart by overeating and underexercising for years has the right to seven to eight figure punitive settlements from pharma companies because he/she just so happened to be taking Viox before they had their 3rd or 4th MI.

That is also a ridiculous example. Lets keep it to the very common medical cases where malpractice actuallt occurs. Ive already dealt with frivolity above.

Im sorry, but lost wages + medical bills + $250,000 sounds like plenty of money for someone to receive as a malpractice settlement. .

So essentially you could be plus 250K net but minus one father/mother and be okay with that? Or if it was your kid and it was obvious negligence?

I am not sure regarding why but CSPAN indicated that 60 votes would be needed to move the legislation forward.

that's because the dems were filibustering, and you have to have 60 to break the filibuster......

I just think that the whole 'tort reform' issue, unfortunately begins and ends with caps on malpractice and that this isnt the real problem but is like cutting your head off to clear up some pimples. Put forth some effort into restructuring the medical liability and legal system and enact punishments for frivolous lawsuits, make it easier for doctors to have rights and cap attorney fees. Find a way to eliminate the 'witness for hire' practice and allow for countersuit in cases of frivolity.

Unfortunately these all require effort, and neither side really wants to fix the situation. They just want to look good/make the other side look bad.

I completely agree with you, but at this point, even with your suggestions which I'm all for, there still is no easy answer I think as long as these suits are brought in front of a jury, but if you take it out of in front of a jury "of our peers" and place it into a system of people who truly know if malpractice happened, we then have a system which is lopsided for doctors and has a strong appearance of impropriety. While nothing improper may not be occurring, just the though of docs policing their own and handing out settlements is just as unappealing to everyone else as having a jury of normal people "too stupid to get out of jury duty" settle our cases. And more so since there are more of them than us, that will never pass any political government.

so at this point, I think non-medical caps are a decent stop gap measure until real acceptable solutions are found.

Im sorry, but lost wages + medical bills + $250,000 sounds like plenty of money for someone to receive as a malpractice settlement.

Similarly, I dont think the spouse of a fat slob who ruined his knees and heart by overeating and underexercising for years has the right to seven to eight figure punitive settlements from pharma companies because he/she just so happened to be taking Viox before they had their 3rd or 4th MI.


Exactly :D

Exactly :D


So, hypothetically, an interventional radiologist making close to a million a year (and in my neck of the woods, you can't get one for less than $600k, ignores, screws up a CT guided biopsy, injures the spleen or liver (depending on where the biopsy was being done), the patient bleeds copiously, ends up in the ICU, and has serious sequalae or dies. Patient was just a blue collar guy, not making a ton of money but doing okay for himself and family. So... assuming true negligence/incompetence/carelessness should the radiologist be penalized an amount that in the scale of his salary is barely punative?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reform. Studies have shown that there is little relationship between who gets sued and the quality of care given. It's a lousy system for reimbursing the legitimately injured, and one that is clearly abused, in large part driven by lawyers. However, in the cases where the system does work and a person who is injured due to true malpractice makes it to court, then the punative sum of $250K is ridiculously low, given the yearly salaries made by many physicians. And while primary care docs don't make a lot of money, many specialties do, and as long as patients are paying large sums to their specialist doctors, they are going to be less understanding or supportive of this kind of reform.

So, hypothetically, an interventional radiologist making close to a million a year (and in my neck of the woods, you can't get one for less than $600k, ignores, screws up a CT guided biopsy, injures the spleen or liver (depending on where the biopsy was being done), the patient bleeds copiously, ends up in the ICU, and has serious sequalae or dies. Patient was just a blue collar guy, not making a ton of money but doing okay for himself and family. So... assuming true negligence/incompetence/carelessness should the radiologist be penalized an amount that in the scale of his salary is barely punative?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reform. Studies have shown that there is little relationship between who gets sued and the quality of care given. It's a lousy system for reimbursing the legitimately injured, and one that is clearly abused, in large part driven by lawyers. However, in the cases where the system does work and a person who is injured due to true malpractice makes it to court, then the punative sum of $250K is ridiculously low, given the yearly salaries made by many physicians. And while primary care docs don't make a lot of money, many specialties do, and as long as patients are paying large sums to their specialist doctors, they are going to be less understanding or supportive of this kind of reform.


Again.......just because someone makes a mistake you do NOT have an entitlement to become an instant bajillionaire.

This all goes back to the entitlement in our society.

If all of the medical expenses and lost wages etc.. are paid for and you don't owe ANYTHING as far as medical bills and you are paid your lost wages etc...AND you get quarter of mil on top of that!? Dude....that's nuts. If you aren't happy with that then you've got some serious issues.

People screw up all of the time in life and people can get hurt (docs are no different).

So, when the city doesn't place a manhole cover on the street correctly and I break my leg and get a PE and end up in the ICU etc.....I should pretty much be entitled to a 2.5 million dollar settlement?



that's just ridiculous.

Do you honestly think getting bajillions of dollars ON TOP of your medical expenses and lost wages is going to make you feel one little iota better back or make all the pain go away.

What kind of society gets to think that "yippeee, a human doctor (prone to mistakes because he's human) messes up and I hit the lotto!"

what a stupid system.

later

So essentially you could be plus 250K net but minus one father/mother and be okay with that? Or if it was your kid and it was obvious negligence?

The problem is that the whole point of a civil lawsuit is to a.) correct the wrong done to the victim (economic damages) and b.) provide a mechanism to ward off future damages. I'm not even sure I believe that b. is a legitimate goal of civil suits, but then I'm a legal minimalist, so that's not surprising. Even if I grant b., however, it doesn't follow that payment to the victim by the defendant of a large sum of money meets that goal. Perhaps probation, suspension, or revokation of their license to practice medicine would be appropriate for a given purpose. Maybe remediation or supervision would be good for others. I'm just not sure how making the doc pay 5 million dollars to his/her ex-patient is going to have any effect on his or his colleagues future performance.

And if I lost a loved one to negligence, but gained 250K, of course I wouldn't be okay with it. Gaining 250M wouldn't make me any happier though. How much money would it take to make YOU happy with that situation? If your answer is no amount of money, then maybe non-economic damages don't even serve the purpose of 'helping' the victim, which shouldn't be the purpose of a civil suit anyway.

In Finland, no one is allowed to sue. But medical errors are public knowledge. Physicians must disclose detail informations regarding the cases by law, so others can learn from their mistakes. Many important data and valuable medical lessons are learned from Finland.

Doctors are not devine! Mistakes happen, instead of punishing them by bankrupting the existing healthcare fund, it is better to report mistakes so others can learn from them.

I believe in Malpractice CAP. Patients should have the right to sue doctors for medical errors so they can be compensated and other physicians and residents will be warned and learned from the mistakes made, but not for 100 million dollars.

I am going into OB/GYN. I have choosen this field because my love for women's health despite the current hostile malpractice environment. My fellow classmates think otherwise, many of them would've choosen this field and become fantastic OB/GYNs, but were scared away from this amazing filed due to the current hostile malpractice environment. Many attendings are no longer practicing Obstetrics not because they don't love what they do but simply it is not worth it anymore. 1/3 of women died of child labor during victorian era, Obstetricians are necessay in our society. If there is no reform in the future, outrageous lawsuits such as "wrongful births" and stupid advertisment from the back of a phone book stating "Do you have a child with Cerebral Palsy, if so contact lawyer of the universe and we will help you sue your OB" then people will have to drive 2-3 hours to see an Obstetrician.

Medicine is not perfect, if it is then we are GOD. OB/GYN is not perfect, we base our medical practice on up-to-date ACOG guidelines, evidence base medicine, which has many limitations. There are so much we don't know, our knowledge are limited, we make mistakes and must learn from our mistakes. However, once you are sued, you will never practice medicine the same again. Every decision you make will not be the best interest of your patients but how to avoid the "Lawyer of the Universe" from coming after you. Yes, some OB/GYN makes $250K, but the lawsuit is well over $250K, who is paying for the $100 million dollar lawsuit? The public is.

Lets look at who benefits from such litigation situations:

1) Patient- Maybe, they incurred so form of harm (malpractice or otherwise unavoidable) and are compensated completely for economic loss and an "award" of some sort for non-economic damages. The point made above is probably the perspective of most in that if it were a serious situation (paralysis, loss of a child) then even if it is $500 million, will it really make up for the loss? I think all of us would answer no.

2) Physician-No, if not bankrupt then continues to feel betrayed by the profession/society that we elected to serve out of the love for our chosen discipline.

3) Lawyer- Undoubtedly yes, collects 40% on the million dollar awards. 18 billion in income in recent years nationally by trail lawyers

4) American Public- No, reduced health services leading to greater healthcare disparity and reduced national health.

5) Insurance Companies- No, while they have plenty of cash, losing large sums because of a broken legal system certainly is not a benefit.

Entitlement in our society has become far to popular. Sure if someone blantantly hurts you, you should have certain rights to reprocussion, but not if sincere mistakes occur in the context of an imperfect human science.

BTW-Report from Harvard today states that over 40% of litigation brought against physicians in the United States has no legal ground. Consider the cost and back-up of real litigation that causes.