Buy own or use hospital malpractice insurance

[moto_za]

Hi All, is it better to buy your own malpractice insurance or just use the hospitals malpractice insurance with tail coverage that they provide? I will be doing full time inpatient work and one of the psychiatrist was telling me it's better to just pay to get your own insurance from an outside company because if something comes up the hospital provided insurance may back the company/hospital and not necessarily you. Is this true? And is it worth paying 5-10k more to get my own? Hospital is willing to pay for the one they provide with tail coverage, but wasn't sure what to do. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sushirolls]

Not worth it.
Your private carrier and theirs are each just as likely to settle.

 

[moto_za]

Not worth it.
Your private carrier and theirs are each just as likely to settle.

Sounds good, thank you!

 

[splik]

actually the opposite might be the case, which is if you're not on the same malpractice there is incentive to hang you out to dry. It's usually not an option - either they provide it or don't. bigger hospitals self-insure as well.

 

[clausewitz2]

actually the opposite might be the case, which is if you're not on the same malpractice there is incentive to hang you out to dry. It's usually not an option - either they provide it or don't. bigger hospitals self-insure as well.

Judgements against you turn into claims against their malpractice policy if you're on their insurance. Claims against a policy increase the rates of that policy. Judgements against you turn into claims against your insurance if you're not. Claims against your personal policy do not increase the rates of their policies.

Solve for the equilibrium.

 

[Stagg737]

So are you both basically saying that being on the hospital policy means less incentive for them to settle to prevent rates from increasing unless it's clearly a lost case?

 

[comp1]

I've never seen anyone encouraged to avoid taking malpractice insurance if offered as a benefit of employment. That would be weird.

 

[Sushirolls]

It somewhat was encouraged in past, with the believe that employer insurance would not operate in your best interest. Or more likely to settle a case rather than take it to court and fight.

 

[clausewitz2]

So are you both basically saying that being on the hospital policy means less incentive for them to settle to prevent rates from increasing unless it's clearly a lost case?

I mean so many of these suits end in settlements of some kind anyway I think it's more accurate to say it encourages them to try to hold down the size of settlements which requires at least some of the preliminaries of contesting it.

 

[moto_za]

So is the take home message to just use the employers provided malpractice insurance? Got a bit confused with some of the responses. Thanks

 

[comp1]

Yes. This is a benefit of employment.

 

[Merovinge]

So is the take home message to just use the employers provided malpractice insurance? Got a bit confused with some of the responses. Thanks

Yes, I would wager that 99+% of employed physicians offered free and appropriate malpractice insurance take the benefit. I have literally never heard of someone declining this to get their own policy instead.

 

[Geraltofrivia]

Somewhat related: I have a friend who was named in a suit. This individual hired their own attorney. Their attorney found many flaws with the hospital-provided attorney's case and also discovered that the hospital attorney was going to basically hang them out to dry. Thanks to this friend hiring their own attorney, the lawsuit was dropped. Moral of the story: Hire your own lawyer but your own malpractice may not be worth it

 

[Merovinge]

Somewhat related: I have a friend who was named in a suit. This individual hired their own attorney. Their attorney found many flaws with the hospital-provided attorney's case and also discovered that the hospital attorney was going to basically hang them out to dry. Thanks to this friend hiring their own attorney, the lawsuit was dropped. Moral of the story: Hire your own lawyer but your own malpractice may not be worth it

That's a really good point, I have heard the same thing. Particularly if multiple docs from different specialties are named (which I think is very often the case).

 

[Geraltofrivia]

That's a really good point, I have heard the same thing. Particularly if multiple docs from different specialties are named (which I think is very often the case).

This is it. My friend was accused of medical harm, although they weren't the medical provider (only psychiatric). The hospital provided attorney didn't care and was ready for them to be hung out to dry. Thankfully the private attorney put a stop to it. It was a great lesson for me