How do we solve the problem of excessive litigation in medicine?

sirus_virus

nonsense poster
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2006
1,254
2
Status (Visible)
  1. Non-Student
So far, the only solution to this problem has been "defensive medicine" which I am sure is costing our system too much money. What solutions do you guys think will help us curtail this menace? I have a few suggestions:

1)Increase the penalties for both lawyers and plaintiffs for filing frivolous suits.

2)Cap the ammount of money lawyers get from medmal lawsuits.

3)Raise the requirement for who can offer professional testimony,i.e, require that a practicing physician of a certain threshold of experience testify, as opposed to the present system where lawyers grab some disgruntled doctor that barely scrapped through medschool for "professional testmony".

4)Create a national database of people that file lawsuits deemed as frivolous and make them available to doctors hospitals and insurance companies.
 

armybound

urologist.
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Jan 1, 2007
4,827
490
Uranus
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Some states are implementing a medical review board that decides whether a case should go on or not after being read by panels of physicians. It seems like a good idea, since these people are well-trained in medicine and can decide whether or not a case is just.

I also think the amount awarded should be capped for some cases. A hospital in my town (Scott & White) just got sued for $12.8mil. Of course, that was after a child was born in a coma and ended up blind and with CP after some inadequate prenatal care.
 

sirus_virus

nonsense poster
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2006
1,254
2
Status (Visible)
  1. Non-Student
Some states are implementing a medical review board that decides whether a case should go on or not after being read by panels of physicians. It seems like a good idea, since these people are well-trained in medicine and can decide whether or not a case is just.

I also think the amount awarded should be capped for some cases. A hospital in my town (Scott & White) just got sued for $12.8mil. Of course, that was after a child was born in a coma and ended up blind and with CP after some inadequate prenatal care.

That sounds like a good idea.
 
About the Ads

kidthor

meep
15+ Year Member
Dec 5, 2005
928
780
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
2) This is a bad idea because sometimes people suffer extreme damages - it's a better route to make it slightly harder to bring suit.

3) Opposing counsel will make a huge deal out of bad expert testimony and the jury will accordingly give that expert's opinion less weight. Also, lawyers don't just "grab some disgruntled doctor" for that very reason - motive for expert testimony is also brought out during trial. The system already takes care of this #3 idea.


2)Cap the ammount of money lawyers get from medmal lawsuits.

3)Raise the requirement for who can offer professional testimony,i.e, require that a practicing physician of a certain threshold of experience testify, as opposed to the present system where lawyers grab some disgruntled doctor that barely scrapped through medschool for "professional testmony".

4)Create a national database of people that file lawsuits deemed as frivolous and make them available to doctors hospitals and insurance companies.
 

DropkickMurphy

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2005
9,731
25
A bar room in Mombasa drinking gin
Status (Visible)
  1. Other Health Professions Student
If the plaintiff loses the suit, the doctor gets their house, car and any money they have. Oh, and they also get deported if they aren't originally from the US. That should slow the rate of litigation down too.

Also banning TV advertisements by malpractice attorneys would be a great idea.
 

DropkickMurphy

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2005
9,731
25
A bar room in Mombasa drinking gin
Status (Visible)
  1. Other Health Professions Student
This is a bad idea because sometimes people suffer extreme damages - it's a better route to make it slightly harder to bring suit.

Not $12.8M worth of damages, especially when the patient is actually at fault and they are just looking for a payday.
 

sirus_virus

nonsense poster
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2006
1,254
2
Status (Visible)
  1. Non-Student
2) This is a bad idea because sometimes people suffer extreme damages - it's a better route to make it slightly harder to bring suit.

3) Opposing counsel will make a huge deal out of bad expert testimony and the jury will accordingly give that expert's opinion less weight. Also, lawyers don't just "grab some disgruntled doctor" for that very reason - motive for expert testimony is also brought out during trial. The system already takes care of this #3 idea.


That is if the case even makes it to trial. Most of them don't as they are either settled or thrown out. The whole idea is that the suits are being filed excessively and we need to find a way to cut down on that nonsense.
 

CubanDoc

Moving to G'ville soon
10+ Year Member
Apr 24, 2006
137
0
Miami, FL
Status (Visible)
  1. Pre-Medical
I would make sure that every doctor and insurance companies know all the information about the medical malpractice lawyers. That way we can refuse to treat them ( families too) .
That way they will know better :smuggrin: :smuggrin: :smuggrin: :smuggrin:
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 14 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.