Malpractice premiums to increase by 82%!

[ad_sharp]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I posted this in the Future of Medicine thread, but it has degenerated to a Bush vs Kerry debate. I want to start a thread to address the problem of malpractice suits and its effect on our ability to care for our patients.

I live in Oklahoma (if you couldn't tell from my avatar). Physicians in my state are facing a very uncertain future in regards to malpractice and their abilities to preform their duties as effective health care providers. Oklahoma's physicians are insured by a group known as PLICO. Recent increased in the rate of malpractice suits coupled with increasing malpractice awards are driving some docs out of business (especially ob/gyn). Some of these docs are leaving the state or shutting their doors due to the cost of insurance and court costs (not that they have actually lost a suit). An ob/gyn just down the street from where I live, had to close his office last week. Here's a few stats if my memory serves correctly:

Average cost of litigation for doctor's defense in a suit that goes to trial: $110,000 (that's what you, your hospital, and insurance company are out even if you win)

Doctors win seven out of ten times if suit goes to jury

Average jury award in 2000: 1.8 million

Average jury award in 2003: 2.3 million (half a million increase in three years )

Here's the kicker, PLICO is out of money. 149 million in the red as of last month (that's a lot in a state of just over 3 million people). One of two things will happen-the state (taxpayers) will bail PLICO out or physicians will shell out some major insurance premiums to keep PLICO afloat. There will more than likely be a combination of both, but premiums are expected to increase by a whopping 82% in the next three years alone. They have already increased 60% last year. Even if you are a great doc with a squeeky clean history, your rates will increase to accomodate those who are not. Saying that you only care about what is best for your patients is the correct thing. Your patients will ultimately foot the bill for unfounded lawsuits, not you. To be honest, this scares me a little as I enter my medical school education. I am a month away from assuming a sizable debt and I desire to stay in my home state in an effort to improve the quality of care available here, but that may be difficult if I cannot afford to pay back my loans in conjunction with my high insurance costs. I don't anticipate it, but there are people who exist that will sue a doc in a shameless attempt to get money. My own grandmother has done it three times. Does this make me not want to be a doc--Heck no, but it is a cause for concern.

Lastly, I would like to offer this thought. Right now, we (including myself) are all premeds who (for the most part) are largely unaware of the impact that malpractice can have on our personal and professional lives. I think that it is easy to forget or not envision the effect that policy makers will have on our future practice. It will be interesting to see what we all think in ten to fifteen years when we (or our colleagues) have more experience in this matter. Keep this in perspective before flaming on about how malpractice is not a real problem. It is to those who currently practice medicine and I assume that most of us will have a change in opinion when we are required to begin paying these premiums. I do realize that docs are well-compensated, but the burden of this will fall on our patients.

At any rate here is a link to the Oklahoma State Medical Association-the group that has represented docs in their modestly successful battle for reform at the state capital. I do realize that this group is obviously pro-doctor, and anti-lawyer. I would like to know your thoughts regarding this action in my home state. Thanks for your time.

 

[velo]

great post...this is a serious problem and we need posters like you who can discuss it without it turning into a petty partisan debate. Tort reform people...tort re-form

 

[Dr.LeoSpaceman]

Have to totally agree with this post. Although, I think that many premeds are aware of the issue, and are worried just like you. We do need tort reform, because lets be honest, who are the only ones winning in this whole deal? Lawyers. There definitely also need to be some sort of award caps to help change this trend. People besides those in the medical field need to start worrying as well. Others need to realize that these increasing rates affect everyone, because increasing rates=less doctors=more difficulty finding care.

I also think part of the problem is a cultural one. With all the advances in medicine, the public has come to expect doctors to save everyone. Regardless of what problem you have, the doctor should fix it. If they can't, or don't, then they obviously made a mistake and you must be entitled to some cash award. I hate to break it to everyone just looking for a handout, but this is not and never will be the case. True that mistakes are made, and some suits are merited, but I would think the vast majority are not.

 

[Childe]

I also think part of the problem is a cultural one.

The culture of 'quick-fix' medicine is terrible in the US. But thats even harder to change than the laws 😛

 

[oudoc08]

Ad, great thread.

 

[velo]

The culture of 'quick-fix' medicine is terrible in the US. But thats even harder to change than the laws 😛

Yeah, and add to that the fact that our culture has become ridiculously litigeous...people walk around with the mindset that they might someday be able to sue someone and hit the jackpot. They expect doctors and medicine to be failproof and asume if something goes wrong they have the right...nay the duty, to sue. Medicine is not a perfect science, and people need to realize that things can go wrong even if you're recieving the best possible care.

And in the case of actual malpractice, we need tort reform. Opponents of tort reform always say "its not about the money" but if that's not the case, then what the hell is it about?! With reform you get your day in court, you can get complete compensatory damages (that is only fair), and you can pocket a cool quarter mil for your "mental anguish." Plus, in open court it is decided that the doctor was in the wrong...you get justice.

Bottom line frivilous lawsuits and outlandish jury awards are a HUGE problem, and if something isn't done the patients are going to see how this problem bites them in the a$$

 

[thewebthsp]

Still I don't think hard and fast caps are appropriate... there has to be a safety valve to make sure legit cases of negligence are prosecuted

as well as a mechanism to ensure highly incompetent docs (5%) are either retrained or let go.

 

[Krazed_Medic]

Great thread! I can't wait to see some opinions about this. I definately agree that something NEEDS to be done about malpractice insurance and all that jazz.

 

[velo]

Still I don't think hard and fast caps are appropriate... there has to be a safety valve to make sure legit cases of negligence are prosecuted

as well as a mechanism to ensure highly incompetent docs (5%) are either retrained or let go.

First off, yes highly incompetent docs need to face serious consequences--up to and including being barred from practicing. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I've heard that in most states a large percentage of legit malpractice cases involve only a handful of physicians...these guys are raising costs for everyone and something should be done.

I'm wary, however, of a "safety valve" for punitive damages. I think compensatory damages should be unlimited, but punative should be capped. Yes there are some cases were a physician is so negligant that it seems fair to award a large chunk of change for mental anguish...but i feel like without hard and fast caps the "safety valve" would just be a loophole lawyers would be able to manipulate to sidestep the tort reform. Who decides when an award larger than $250k is appropriate....hm, just thinking out loud, maybe an independant panel of physicians...a jury of his peers so to speak...anyway, i'm just worried that without firm caps real reform won't happen.

Good post though...and by the way Sarah Silverman is HUGELY underrated 🙂

 

[sammyhagar19]

Tort reform is only part of the problem. The other half involves placing some limits on the juggernaut that is the health insurance industry, which whether or not you agree involves some sort of govt regulation (because lets face it that as much as we want to beleive it CEOs and CFOs and the like are for the most part greedy and immoral). One reason why rates have spiked so much in the last few years is that during a bull market these big ins. firms drop all their money into the market, hedging on the the fact that they can make even more money. Then when the market turns south like it did in 2000 these companies are stuck trying to make back their money, so they bend over their policy holders and jack up rates. If you plot malpractice rates against economic health, theres a clear cycle. And for anyone who is opposed to govt regulation of industry, look at the 3 most profitable and "coincidentally" most regulated industries: agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and technology. On a side note wouldnt it be great if the feds gave you a big subsidy if your ins. rates got too high, like a farmer does.

 

[exmike]

DEATH TO AMBULANCE CHASERS!!!!!!!!!!!! 😛

 

[calstudent]

i'll agree...i'm pretty worried.
we are doing this job (or trying to!) of medicine because we care, want to help, and such.
but then, if we get hit by all these lawsuits...how fair is that?
i wish it would just all be in john grisham's books and not real life!

 

[stwei]

How does the scenery look for doctors who specialise in preventive medicine?
Do their insurance premiums go skyrocket up through the roof as well?

 

[Gleevec]

Things are going to have to get worse to get better. Unfortunately politicians are generally businessmen or lawyers, and they look out for their own (Republicans look out for insurance companies and HMOs, Democrats look out for trial lawyers). And the doctors that are politicians lack the balls to stand up to their business and lawyer counterparts.

It is honestly going to take entire regions of the US lacking some specialists (say OB/Gyns) before things get better. Doctors have no leverage, because unlike other professions we cannot ethically strike because of the pain to patients that would cause. But in effect, many regions are starting to have "de facto strikes" in the form of doctors fleeing some states with high premiums.

I just have a sinking feeling that things are going to have to get so bad that the issue makes it to the front page of newspapers before things get better for us.

The only thing I know is that if the public is given a choice between politicians, insurance companies/HMOs, medmal lawyers, and doctors, and who they trust and based on their needs I have a feeling public opinion will start to become increasingly on our side.

 

[Garuda]

The Democratic party gets almost 2/3 of their contributions from trial lawyers.

Even if you don't like George W. Bush, don't screw the rest of us over by voting for Democrats in this election. You can vote for Nader, the Green Candidate, Libertarians, etc. etc. Thanks.

 

[JohnDO]

I've heard rumors of a third-party system, wherein the doctor and patient consent to allow a third-party to independently review complaints against the physician and decide whether or not the case merits a lawsuit. Supposedly this might help cut back on frivolous suits. What do you think of a system like that?

 

[ShyRem]

Wasn't it Virginia where a couple of years ago almost all of the doctors walked out for one whole month protesting the outrageous malpractice premiums? As I recall, nothing was done about it. The hospitals pulled in other docs from other states and the lawmakers sat with their thumbs up their butts and did nothing.

Our legislature won't do anything about this anytime soon - they're mostly lawyers themselves and know they can make a PILE of money on any lawsuit against a physician, no matter how trivial or true it may be. It's all about money, folks. The lay person still thinks a doctor is rich and has money to burn. They don't know that these days doctors need help to buy a house.

 

[tugbug]

Tort reform is only part of the problem. The other half involves placing some limits on the juggernaut that is the health insurance industry, which whether or not you agree involves some sort of govt regulation (because lets face it that as much as we want to beleive it CEOs and CFOs and the like are for the most part greedy and immoral). One reason why rates have spiked so much in the last few years is that during a bull market these big ins. firms drop all their money into the market, hedging on the the fact that they can make even more money. Then when the market turns south like it did in 2000 these companies are stuck trying to make back their money, so they bend over their policy holders and jack up rates. If you plot malpractice rates against economic health, theres a clear cycle. And for anyone who is opposed to govt regulation of industry, look at the 3 most profitable and "coincidentally" most regulated industries: agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and technology. On a side note wouldnt it be great if the feds gave you a big subsidy if your ins. rates got too high, like a farmer does.

Hey guys, first - strong recommendation to visit the Everyone forum. There are some very informative threads there covering many aspects of the malpractice debate...

Two quick notes on this thread. The SammyHagar post I quoted restates the claim that rate spikes are due to market investments gone bad... This is a very common claim, but it looks like it is wrong according to GAO and HHS studies that have been discussed at length in Everyone.

Also, someone sideswiped the "5% of physicians getting 50% of the suits" soundbite. Again, often stated... and very misleading. The actual numbers might be true, because 5% of physicians are in specialties that get 50% of the suits... But, it does not back up the claim of the anti-Tort reform crowd that if we just remove a few bad apples then problem solved... Wrong. The verdicts in these suits are essentially random and your chances of being sued as an MD will be determined by which specialty you choose and where you practice... not skill.

Stats to consider:60% of OB's and ER docs, and 70% of Neurosurgeons have been sued in the past 5 years in NY. In 2000, 52% of all docs were sued in Texas.... 5% MY ARSE These guys are after all of us.

 

[mamaMD]

I think this is a very important issue and one as a pre-med I *am* pretty worried about. I have posted questions about malpractice before (on other pre-med forums and maybe here as well) and it was like no one seemed to give it the slightest thought or was worried in the least about it! Huh?

I admit I don't know a whole lot about malpractice and what should be done, but it is a huge problem and I think it will only get worse.

I'm in Oklahoma City and I was just reading in the Sunday paper about an Edmond OB/GYN who had to drop the OB and is only doing GYN work now, pretty sad.

Marilyn

 

[Eyecon82]

DEATH TO AMBULANCE CHASERS!!!!!!!!!!!! 😛

What's that?

 

[Eyecon82]

Please excuse my ignorance because I have NO knowledge of malpractice issues.....

But wouldn't a simple signed consent before treatment solve this whole problem? Unless, of course, the Dr. leaves scissors in your abdomen or amputates the wrong limb...or something completely absurd.

 

[papertiger]

What's that?

ambulance chaser=lawyer

Kerry might actually help the doctors because his own daughter goes to med school but with Edwards and all the funds they get from lawyers, I don't know how that would work out.

 

[tugbug]

ambulance chaser=lawyer

Kerry might actually help the doctors because his own daughter goes to med school but with Edwards and all the funds they get from lawyers, I don't know how that would work out.

The plans Kerry has proposed as well as those Edwards put his name on when he was a candidate are rough for docs. Look at their plans for malpractice issues, reimbursement, regulations, etc. These guys are gonna make practicing the way we want tough, and paying off student loans tougher!

 

[DrMaturin]

Consent forms are a common solution people bring up, but my understanding is that people cannot legally sign away their right to sue. So, they can sign a consent form and it can be used against them in court, but the court can disregard it. Physicians could use these forms to help themselves in court, but it is no guarantee. It would probably be found to be an illegal contract and therefore no contract at all.

 

[Eyecon82]

ambulance chaser=lawyerQUOTE]

Oh..haha...we're used to calling them paper-pushers

For a sec, I thought you meant people who follow ambulances to beat traffic

 

[JohnDO]

But wouldn't a simple signed consent before treatment solve this whole problem?

Consent forms are child's play to get around these days. You can sign all the consent forms you want, but if a lawyer wants his money, he'll find a way to get around it.

 

[Eyecon82]

Consent forms are a common solution people bring up, but my understanding is that people cannot legally sign away their right to sue. So, they can sign a consent form and it can be used against them in court, but the court can disregard it. Physicians could use these forms to help themselves in court, but it is no guarantee. It would probably be found to be an illegal contract and therefore no contract at all.

That's BS (the court system)...how can the court throw out a legally binding contract??

In regards to not being able to sign away their right to sue....Don't skydiving and bungee jumping businesses do it all the time? It says right on the form, in case of any accidental death or mishap, we are not liable and so forth....

 

[delicatefade]

And those companies are still sued all the time, regardless of the waiver forms.

 

[Eyecon82]

And those companies are still sued all the time, regardless of the waiver forms.

Wow...I didn't know that....i mean..what's the point in a waiver at all then if it doesnt mean anything?

Maybe if there was a law passed that made a legally binding contract set in stone no matter what (only professional businesses) malpractice won't be an issue

 

[thewebthsp]

In a lot of insurance situations it's hard to sue -- look at full vs. limited tort with respect to auto insurance. With limited tort you can't sue the other driver in a car accident.

Another option is to countersue both individuals and lawyers (personally) filing frivoulous lawsuits. And to refile and refile against the lawyers especially.

 

[Eyecon82]

In a lot of insurance situations it's hard to sue -- look at full vs. limited tort with respect to auto insurance. With limited tort you can't sue the other driver in a car accident.

Another option is to countersue both individuals and lawyers (personally) filing frivoulous lawsuits. And to refile and refile against the lawyers especially.

With physicians having such a demanding profession, it would be hard for any Dr. to have that time to get back at friviolous lawsuits and probably have a hard time finding the financial backing to do so. Insurance companies should definetly take this initiative

 

[jpro]

Does anybody know of a PAC representing physicains? I've never heard of one, but we will def need one to petition our government. Lord knows there is plenty of PACs representing trial lawyers.

 

[Eyecon82]

Maybe all the MD/JD's should do something about this

it's unfortunate that so many md/jd's turn out to be malpractice trial lawyers and turn their back on their fellow MD's

 

[mdterps83]

Seriously, tort reform is needed in this country, but when was the last time you saw a bum with a stethoscope and a white coat. Never, so have a little perspective for being in the 99.999% of world income.

Wasn't it Virginia where a couple of years ago almost all of the doctors walked out for one whole month protesting the outrageous malpractice premiums? As I recall, nothing was done about it. The hospitals pulled in other docs from other states and the lawmakers sat with their thumbs up their butts and did nothing.

Our legislature won't do anything about this anytime soon - they're mostly lawyers themselves and know they can make a PILE of money on any lawsuit against a physician, no matter how trivial or true it may be. It's all about money, folks. The lay person still thinks a doctor is rich and has money to burn. They don't know that these days doctors need help to buy a house.

 

[Jeff3614]

Somebody earlier had asked about a verification of malpractice by a peer, wherein another doctor would have to 'sign off' on the validity of a malpractice claim. This is typical of what Illinois currently has in place, which is like the wild west when it comes malpractice suits and insurance premiums.

There was a large writeup in the Chicago papers recently about this practice because of how unfair it was to doctors wrongly accused of malpractice. An example was cited of a doctor that was basically sued, not for a botched procedure, but because he was part of a team that had worked on the patient when the incident supposedly happened. The only thing this doctor had done was insert an IV, and he was sued. Because the 'peer review' process of validating a malpractice claim keeps the verifier anonymous, there was no way for this doctor to coutersue anyone when the case was thrown out because of the frivilous claim, which in turn made this doctor's insurance premiums skyrocket.

If anything needs to be done, they need to put caps on malpractice suits. I think it's interesting that most of the general population could case less about this issue, but they cry foul whenever a doctor starts talking about money and lack of compensation due to a poor health care system and frivoulous lawsuits. As if doctors aren't allowed to live normal lives.

My personal opinion is that more and more good doctors are being driven away from the profession because it's just not worth the headache anymore. Rising costs, public outcry over deaths due to medical negligence, and a shortage of quality of doctors are contributing to the validation (In the eyes of state governments and insurance companies) of CRNAs and Chiropractors as alternative gateways for primary care. I agree that things need to get worse before they will get better, hopefully that time will come sooner than later.

-J

 

[woolie]

Here in Utah the biggest health care provider, IHC - Intermountain Healthcare Corp - requires their patients to sign a waiver before receiving medical treatment. The waiver says I will not sue you, but will agree to arbitration. This is a heavy mormon state and people are pretty well behaved in general, so I don't think the litigation is as high as it might be in say, NY. Still, I think it is an awesome idea and so far staff tell me most people have no complaints.

I think we should do this nationally or no - wait! how about a national health system ... ? Seriously, when people stop thinking of medicine as the final frontier of 'get rich quick land', then we will all be better off. I say: shoot the lawyers, then ask questions later. 😉

 

[velo]

The Democratic party gets almost 2/3 of their contributions from trial lawyers.

Even if you don't like George W. Bush, don't screw the rest of us over by voting for Democrats in this election. You can vote for Nader, the Green Candidate, Libertarians, etc. etc. Thanks.

ok that may be true...although i have no idea where you're getting these stats...but the republicans have had solid control of congress and the white house for 2 years now and nothing has happened...I don't think either party is really committed to malpractice reform

 

[velo]

Seriously, tort reform is needed in this country, but when was the last time you saw a bum with a stethoscope and a white coat. Never, so have a little perspective for being in the 99.999% of world income.

what are you talking about? this is a problem that affects everyone! The issue isn't that docs are greedy and want lower insurance premiums to make more money, the issue is that frivilous lawsuits and huge jury awards have made malpractice insurance UNAFFORDABLE for many MDs....meaning that a number of things might happen 1) MDs flee the state--that causes a healthcare crisis in the now-understaffed state. 2) MDs have to raise rates so that they can pay for insurance...healthcare becomes unaffordable for patients. 3) MDs "go bare"--put all assets in their spouses name (better trust him/her!) and then don't get malpractice insurance--now they're unsueable...no assets to take. Fine (but irresponsible) if they're a good doc, but if they're actually responsible for a legit malpractice claim its very difficult for that patient to get compensation.

We need to have perspective for the 100% of the population that's affected by this issue

 

[MacGyver]

That's BS (the court system)...how can the court throw out a legally binding contract??

its virtually IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a legally binding contract, and this is why:

LAWYERS GOAL IS TO MAKE EVERYTHING SO SOPHISTICATED AND COMPLICATED THAT YOU MUST PAY THEM TO DO THESE THINGS.

If they made it simple with common sense, nobody would need their services, and you'd see a lot of unemployed lawyers out there.

There's a reason why regulations and laws get more complex every year. Its self-perpetuation by the lawyers. They know that their opps for income will go up as complexity and uncertainty increase.

 

[ad_sharp]

Hey everbody,thanks for the feedback. Seems that we've got some good opinions represented in here. However, I would like to urge you not to turn this into a republican vs democrat or Bush vs Kerry thread. Way too many threads on this topic have already degerated to nothing but name calling.

I would also like to know if anyone has information on any political action committees. I will be a member of OSMA in a month or so, but I want to know if there is anything else I can do.

Here's my advice to you about the current situation--contact your representatives! I periodically contact my state senator, state house representive, US senator, US representitive, governor, and other public officials to voice my concerns. Occassionally, you even get lucky and receive a personalized letter instead of a form letter. My point is that politicians will not act on anything until they are poked and prodded by people such as ourselves. When it comes to improving the current situation, we (along with informed patients) are our own best bet.

As equally important as our own action and vioce of concerns is our obligation to inform the general public of current circumstances. Make people understand that the high costs associated with unwarranted litigation are not paid by doctors-it is paid for by the average American through outrageous health care costs. Although these issues are very important to us, I feel that the average American does not consider the importance of the connection between lawsuits and their high medical bills. It is much easier to blame the person who gave the care (the doctor) because doctors are the visible entity in the healthcare system. I believe, as Gleevac has pointed out, that public opinion will begin to turn toward the physician in future years, but we may have a rough ride ahead.

Don't wait, contact your reps.

 

[superdevil]

the republicans have had solid control of congress and the white house for 2 years now and nothing has happened...I don't think either party is really committed to malpractice reform

sad but true. like has been said before, most politicians are lawyers by trade, anyway--so they will protect their own first. honestly, the words "democrat" and "republican" mean absolutely nothing to me. they are just two groups of politicians who, although they are personally almost identical, happen to pander/lie to different groups of voters to get their jobs and $$$.

 

[Eyecon82]

I also have another question regarding this matter..

Would it be possible to have a certain group of Judges, senators....to evaluate each malpractice lawsuit before it even goes to court? Or just create a law that makes doctors not liable. Unless of course its something completely out of wack....but patients have a right for a 2nd opinion and this new law would definetly encourage that

 

[Teragen]

I found this webpage

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/08/10/17.html

It talks about arbitration agreements. This seems like a good alternative at this moment and one company, supposedly hasn't raised premiums in 4 years. See what you think.

 

[sammyhagar19]

I also have another question regarding this matter..

Would it be possible to have a certain group of Judges, senators....to evaluate each malpractice lawsuit before it even goes to court? Or just create a law that makes doctors not liable. Unless of course its something completely out of wack....but patients have a right for a 2nd opinion and this new law would definetly encourage that

i think an independent review board would have to have doctors and judges/lawyers on it to be both impartial and informed while maintaining judicial legitimacy. and i would keep the politicians as far away as possible.

FRIVILOUS LITIGATION BLOWS!!!!

 

[wordup]

No the real problem is that Bush is a maniac. He is a monster and a has got to be ousted.

Additionally we have never been to the moon, hell we didn't even know what space was until 1974 when the cosmonauts sent back pictures of the moon being space bot 23014. Luckily we were able to contrive a time machine in the nick of time to fabricate the landing footage and send it back to 1949 where it lay in wait until we knew what electricity was and were able to make the pictures talk and move.

 

[tugbug]

i think an independent review board would have to have doctors and judges/lawyers on it to be both impartial and informed while maintaining judicial legitimacy. and i would keep the politicians as far away as possible.

FRIVILOUS LITIGATION BLOWS!!!!

Review boards like the ones you guys are talking about sound like a great first step to me... but, they are only a SMALL part of the solution. Here is a case result published yesterday. In this one, a review panel with both Docs and Lawyers/judges found NO MALPRACTICE by either the doc involved or the hospital... the jury still awarded $3 million.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/local/040527juryaward.shtml

-From the article-

A charge of negligence against the hospital was dismissed by Justice Thomas Humphrey before trial.

The verdict was unusually large for Maine, where awards of more than a million dollars are rare. It was particularly surprising in this case because a medical malpractice review panel had unanimously found that the doctor and hospital were not at fault for Maietta's injury. The panel's finding was disclosed to the jury, but it found for Maietta anyway.

"I'll take my chances with a jury any day," said Maietta's lawyer, Daniel J. Lilley of Portland.

 

[tugbug]

Also, I think the main political force for malpracice reform is the AMA. I have seen some names for PACs that apparently work for malpractice reform, but I get the impression the majority of the work is AMA driven.

 

[pjm]

... the republicans have had solid control of congress and the white house for 2 years now and nothing has happened...I don't think either party is really committed to malpractice reform

Read today's WSJ, front page. It discusses how the trial lawyer lobby has successfully prevented tort reform efforts by getting Republicans and Democrats on their side.

Lobbying has a huge influence in Washington -- read Friday's WSJ, front page, for a story on how Medtronic successfully lobbied the FDA to ignore FDA researchers' claims that surgery was safer than the Medtronic aortic stent.

article links are:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108932491449959127,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108924202861557997,00.html

however they are subscription only; here are some excerpts:

headline: Trial-Lawyers Lobby Discovers Unlikely Friends: Republicans
author: SHAILAGH MURRAY
paper: Wall Street Journal
date: July 8, 2004; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- President Bush badly wants to make it tougher for plaintiffs' lawyers to win big verdicts. He did it in Texas when he was governor. He talks about it frequently from the presidential podium, eliciting cheers from business. His party controls Congress, and his opponents, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, traditionally support Democrats.

Yet Mr. Bush isn't making much headway. Nine "tort reform" bills have been defeated in the Senate in the past 14 months, including two attempts to limit attorneys' fees and three to overhaul medical-malpractice laws.
...

The trial lawyers' association, long viewed as one of Washington's smartest and most partisan lobbies, has outmaneuvered the White House and its business allies at almost every turn. The group, known by its initials, ATLA, stirs public sympathy for victims that typically trumps Mr. Bush's complaints that lawsuits are clogging the arteries of the American economy.

It also deftly exploits the tension in Republican ranks between two competing principles: that trial lawyers are bad and that government regulation is bad -- including regulation that restricts the ability of lawyers and their clients to rake in big judgments.

"Republicans don't like to cap anything but their income tax," says Matt Towery, a Republican pollster in Atlanta who has done research for ATLA.

Lately, ATLA has also taken advantage of the often-overlooked political fact that like Democrats, many Republicans start out in the courtroom, before their political ambitions take them to Washington. A leading example is Orrin Hatch of Utah, the influential chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former trial lawyer. In the closely divided Senate, a handful of Republican votes are enough to block lawsuit limits.
....

chart:

DATE VOTE BILL
May 19, 2004 37-62
To express Senate support for imposing an excise tax on tobacco lawyers' fees in excess of $20,000 per hour.

April 22, 2004 50-47* (60 to pass)
To create a trust fund for asbestos victims.

April 7, 2004 49-48* (60 to pass)
To cap certain medical-malpractice awards.

Feb. 24, 2004 48-45* (60 to pass)
To cap malpractice awards related to obstetrical and gynecological services.

Oct. 22, 2003 59-39* (60 to pass)
To transfer large interstate class-action cases to federal courts.

July 9, 2003 49-48* (60 to pass)
To cap medical-malpractice awards.

 

[youknow]

Is it possible for a "doctor's strike?" I was talking to my family doctor about his malpractice insurance and he said he was paying 34,000 dollars/year....with NO lawsuits filed against him!!!! That is insane!! 3 Neurosurgeons left Illinois and 1 quit altogether because of malpractice insurance! So is it possible for a strike in the future if things don't get any better?

 

[juddson]

Yeah, and add to that the fact that our culture has become ridiculously litigeous...people walk around with the mindset that they might someday be able to sue someone and hit the jackpot.

You know people like this? I've never met somebody who walks around waiting for an opportunity to sue their doctor.

and you can pocket a cool quarter mil for your "mental anguish."

Now, suppose the surgeon switches his 2 o'clock with his 7 o'clock and you end up having your right arm amputated at the shoulder while under anesthetic for what was supposed to be an appendectomy? Would this is your "mental anguish" or would that be "economic damages"?

Judd