NY Malpractice Reform

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Hijacking the thread for a more medical student specific response. I put this in allo and osteo student boards earlier. The DFMMR links is really good, and here is a butt-load of more information on the topic.

Pre-Med Students, Medical Students, and Physicians of New York State;
We currently are in one of those moments where we can strongly influence the course of politics and the very face of Medicine in the state. Albany is currently debating the state budget and central in the debate is a package of 70+ legislative actions that would lower the State debt by directly engaging the rate of medical malpractice, physician liability, and physician compensation through Medicaid. The package was crafted by an independent group of analysts containing no doctors, and sees that reducing the need for defensive medicine will be a massive catalyst for both fixing the New York budget and the current state of medicine done for the sake of lawsuit protection, rather than common sense practice. The budget has the support of the Medical Society of The State of New York, has the support of the Governor, and has passed in The State Senate, but was stopped short in The State Assembly. It is at this moment where we students, with our unique perspective, should be acting.

As medical students, considering where to practice is one of the most important decisions we will ever make in our lives. Given the extraordinary debt burden that most of students face (the average medical student debt now exceeds $150,000, with most Manhattan schools reaching well past $200,000), the outrageously high costs that physicians have to pay in medical liability insurance premiums will make it very difficult for students to consider practicing in New York State. This has led to New York being acutely affected by issues of student emigration, leading to holes in the training-to-practice system that has both allowed offshore schools to move in en masse and for highly-skilled, NY-trained, doctors to leave the state that trained them depleting pool of candidates to be the new generation to carry on the tradition of excellence.

The enormous costs of practice in New York are driven in significant part by the failed medical liability adjudication system. Many studies have conclusively demonstrated that this failed system generates cases where awards are made despite the absence of any negligence whatsoever. Moreover, in addition to rapidly increasing awards, tens of millions of our premium dollars are spent each year to defend cases where no payment is ever made to the plaintiff. A large portion of the dollars paid into the malpractice system, furthermore, never reaches the plaintiff but is expended on the process costs of this grossly inefficient adjudication system.

These problems are particularly acute in New York. Malpractice payouts and premiums in this State continue to be far out of proportion to the rest of country, and the highest in the nation in every aspect. For example, in 2008, by far and away, New York State had the highest number of paid medical liability claims in the country (1,373), more than 50% greater than the next highest state, California (901), and more than 60% greater than the state with the third highest number, Florida (842). As a result, physicians in New York pay among the highest liability insurance premiums in the country. This must change. I'm not going to risk my career and wallet on this nonsense, just because I love New York.

The legislation aims to put caps on non-economic damages of malpractice, create an indemnity fund to pay for neurologic injuries in infants, and will require that doctors who testify against other doctors be licensed and practice in the field in which they are testifying. It won't all be roses and sunshine for doctors though, the cost-cutting measures don't just come from tort reform, but also from some cut backs on compensation for procedures. But we as students have the unique ability to say that¸ while we acknowledge that it does cut from our direct profits; the fact that this bill creates a system that is much more hospitable to practice in is more than enough to offset it. If nothing else can be said about this budget legislation, it is fair. Cuts come from all across the board in healthcare, and it makes the NY system more honest and more in line with the rest of the nation.

I urge you. If this message spoke to you at all, click on this link (http://capwiz.com/mssny/state/main/?state=NY) and support the medical liability reform legislation. If you really care about this issue, like I and so many other students do, write your own letter to your legislators. Handwriting it is even more impressive. Call them. Do something to change the medical landscape for the better. Right now the world knows exactly where doctors stand. It's not often that medical students have been actively engaged, and we have been, to talk on matters as big as this. Answer the call and tell your legislators to support the passing of this portion of the budget whole and as-is.

Thank You,
Excelsior
 
Excelsior, sorry but if I wanted your 'pitch' I would have clicked in the link. There is no need for a several-paragraph summary of the link. As pre-mess we are all capable of reading and deciding if we care enough to visit the site.
 

Ill give an example instead:

Example of current system: Child is born with cerebral palsy... Sue the OB/GYN, Pediatrician, Nurses, PAs, and techs that were involved for millions

With the fund:
all OB/GYNs will pay a specified amount each year into a fund, if a Child is born with cerebral palsy, the family will be compensated out of that fund, eliminating multi million dollar lawsuits against doctors...
 
Excelsior, sorry but if I wanted your 'pitch' I would have clicked in the link. There is no need for a several-paragraph summary of the link. As pre-mess we are all capable of reading and deciding if we care enough to visit the site.

That's the site designed for doctors though. It also doesn't have nearly as much information on it as my previous comment. I was linking to the petition that is specific for medical students and pre-med students. Just trying to make sure the properly targeted information reaches the right people, though the original is sufficient.

As a side note: I was involved in the creation and transmission of both petition pages across the internet. :laugh: So I'm not offended at all that you prefer the other one, but its not 'meant' for the student level. The larger comment is meant for students, and was crafted by The Medical Society of The State of New York for that purpose.

Either way, just get active guys (and ladies).
 
Last edited:
Ill give an example instead:

Example of current system: Child is born with cerebral palsy... Sue the OB/GYN, Pediatrician, Nurses, PAs, and techs that were involved for millions

With the fund:
all OB/GYNs will pay a specified amount each year into a fund, if a Child is born with cerebral palsy, the family will be compensated out of that fund, eliminating multi million dollar lawsuits against doctors...

👍 good example.
 
Ill give an example instead:

Example of current system: Child is born with cerebral palsy... Sue the OB/GYN, Pediatrician, Nurses, PAs, and techs that were involved for millions

With the fund:
all OB/GYNs will pay a specified amount each year into a fund, if a Child is born with cerebral palsy, the family will be compensated out of that fund, eliminating multi million dollar lawsuits against doctors...

Isn't this currently known as malpractice insurance?
 
Isn't this currently known as malpractice insurance?

The difference here is that the funds come mostly from state pay-in instead of doctor pay-in. I have to imagine that the indemnity fund also 1) dissuades suits ontop of the indemnity payment as there is *some* amount of monetary support given immediately, 2) gives out much less than the notoriously large NY lawsuit payments and 3) no one has to pay the lawyers.
 
The difference here is that the funds come mostly from state pay-in instead of doctor pay-in. I have to imagine that the indemnity fund also 1) dissuades suits ontop of the indemnity payment as there is *some* amount of monetary support given immediately, 2) gives out much less than the notoriously large NY lawsuit payments and 3) no one has to pay the lawyers.

Ah, didn't understand the state paid into the fund as well. I think there would be more regulation of malpractice if the government was having to pony up some of their own money. I'll probably never touch NY with a 10 foot pole but it sounds like a positive move.
 
Ah, didn't understand the state paid into the fund as well. I think there would be more regulation of malpractice if the government was having to pony up some of their own money. I'll probably never touch NY with a 10 foot pole but it sounds like a positive move.

haha it's definitely the worst state to practice in from a malpractice POV. Runs away with all of those stats listed above. But I grew up here and want to stay here, so I'll just have to support these things whenever I hear about them and be really careful which limbs i'm cutting into :meanie:
 
Ill give an example instead:

Example of current system: Child is born with cerebral palsy... Sue the OB/GYN, Pediatrician, Nurses, PAs, and techs that were involved for millions

With the fund:
all OB/GYNs will pay a specified amount each year into a fund, if a Child is born with cerebral palsy, the family will be compensated out of that fund, eliminating multi million dollar lawsuits against doctors...

I'm just curious, but would the fund pay them the equivalent amount of the lawsuit? Otherwise, wouldn't the family rather have the lawsuit so they could get greater compensation for their troubles?
 
I'm just curious, but would the fund pay them the equivalent amount of the lawsuit? Otherwise, wouldn't the family rather have the lawsuit so they could get greater compensation for their troubles?

It pays the same amount for medical coverage and disability costs. Yes. What it doesn't do is give extra money for punitive reasons and for 'non physical pain and suffering' AKA, 'you already got enough money to make up for all the money you could have earned in your life if you were fully functional, and extra to cover medical costs... and here is *another* bundle of money just because we feel bad".

That last bundle of money is what is really out of control in tort suits. The indemnity fund should, i believe, just stick to covering costs of therapies and lost future wages.
 
Excelsior, sorry but if I wanted your 'pitch' I would have clicked in the link. There is no need for a several-paragraph summary of the link. As pre-mess we are all capable of reading and deciding if we care enough to visit the site.

I disagree, I wanted a summary and didn't want to need to link off SDN. I prefer having a small summary made of the articles.

Excelsior, keep doing it. Lifetake, next time, maybe don't read his summary?
 
It pays the same amount for medical coverage and disability costs. Yes. What it doesn't do is give extra money for punitive reasons and for 'non physical pain and suffering'

Would "non physical pain and suffering" also include trading for a basketball superstar only to have your team be 7-10 with him and the team that traded him 11-4 without him?

Sorry, I'm a Nuggets fan and I couldn't resist. Sorry for the bit of derail.
 
Would "non physical pain and suffering" also include trading for a basketball superstar only to have your team be 7-10 with him and the team that traded him 11-4 without him?

Sorry, I'm a Nuggets fan and I couldn't resist. Sorry for the bit of derail.

pshh. I'm getting a Landry Fields jersey. He'll never let me down.
 
I'm just curious, but would the fund pay them the equivalent amount of the lawsuit? Otherwise, wouldn't the family rather have the lawsuit so they could get greater compensation for their troubles?

Like DocEspana said: the fund will not provide compensation for pain and suffering which these days go for 5+ million dollars 😱, The fund will pay all medical expenses and lost work wages (if you cant work because of it) as far as lawsuits, this would limit all pain and suffering lawsuits to $250,000, economic lawsuits still stay the same, The fund would most likely provide more money than the lawsuit cap anyway.

The point is to end lawsuits so the family wont prefer any lawsuit, it would be non-existent, in NY a typical OB/GYN pays $250,000+ a year to malpractice insurance its crazy, and therefore many docs go over the bridges and through the tunnels to work elsewhere, leaving NY with a physician shortage.
 
Ill give an example instead:

Example of current system: Child is born with cerebral palsy... Sue the OB/GYN, Pediatrician, Nurses, PAs, and techs that were involved for millions

With the fund:
all OB/GYNs will pay a specified amount each year into a fund, if a Child is born with cerebral palsy, the family will be compensated out of that fund, eliminating multi million dollar lawsuits against doctors...



You guys should study the NICA plan down here in Florida.

https://www.nica.com/other_physicians/index.html

While I was an undergrad at state we talked to many Harvard fellows who came down here to our capital to study this system. This saved the OB/GYN profession in Florida. The lawyers fought against this for years and are always attempting to do away with it. I must assume this impasse will prove much more difficult in places like New York.

From what I hear that is going on in places like New York/Pennsylvania/Ohio/New England is that it's going to take alot more than capping lawsuit awards to help the situation. My advice is to move to sunny Florida/Texas where people let you practice and actually let you keep your money.
 
I'm just curious, but would the fund pay them the equivalent amount of the lawsuit? Otherwise, wouldn't the family rather have the lawsuit so they could get greater compensation for their troubles?


How it works with NICA in Florida, the lawyers can't even bring a civil case against the physician. The legislature has set up a judiciary panel which sees all cases and pays out compensation to the families which is at a max of 100,000$. No lawyers, no court fees, no more families going bankrupt from medical cost. A fair trade for a physician paying a 300$ a month NICA fee instead of the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance.
It is a shame the state only allows this for the OB/GYNs. It will likely be the same for any New York system. Lawyers can't have their profit margins hurt too bad now. A parasite tends to starve when you separate it from the host.
 
How it works with NICA in Florida, the lawyers can't even bring a civil case against the physician. The legislature has set up a judiciary panel which sees all cases and pays out compensation to the families which is at a max of 100,000$. No lawyers, no court fees, no more families going bankrupt from medical cost. A fair trade for a physician paying a 300$ a month NICA fee instead of the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance.
It is a shame the state only allows this for the OB/GYNs. It will likely be the same for any New York system. Lawyers can't have their profit margins hurt too bad now. A parasite tends to starve when you separate it from the host.

This is actually *fantastic* info though. I've wanted to craft a national legislation very similar to this, but thought there was no basis in any current state systems. Knowing one exists means I can craft something from that. Thanks! This is something where we definitely need to learn from FL. (giving old people cars is one way in which we don't need to learn from you guys)
 
This is actually *fantastic* info though. I've wanted to craft a national legislation very similar to this, but thought there was no basis in any current state systems. Knowing one exists means I can craft something from that. Thanks! This is something where we definitely need to learn from FL. (giving old people cars is one way in which we don't need to learn from you guys)


Haha.
 
I would understand your self interest in having such a law pass in NY. Here is two ways of preventing lawsuits; DON’T GET CARELESS OR SCREW UP!!! Or have hospitals follow the same Cornell Univ. Hospital prevention plan that eliminated lawsuits soon after implementation. Just giving OBGYNs a pass on any future mistakes that causes a lifetime of disability or worse DEATH, does not solve the issue just makes it worse, and no, I am not a lawyer; I am a father of a child with CP. Boy did I see careless mistakes and coverups done.
 
I would understand your self interest in having such a law pass in NY. Here is two ways of preventing lawsuits; DON’T GET CARELESS OR SCREW UP!!! Or have hospitals follow the same Cornell Univ. Hospital prevention plan that eliminated lawsuits soon after implementation. Just giving OBGYNs a pass on any future mistakes that causes a lifetime of disability or worse DEATH, does not solve the issue just makes it worse, and no, I am not a lawyer; I am a father of a child with CP. Boy did I see careless mistakes and coverups done.

Are you trying to imply that every instance of cerebral palsy is the result of a mistake made by an OB?
I didn't understand the reason why Medical Malpractice is such a hot topic in New York until I moved here. The culture and societal push towards litigation is unbelievable.
 
I would understand your self interest in having such a law pass in NY. Here is two ways of preventing lawsuits; DON’T GET CARELESS OR SCREW UP!!! Or have hospitals follow the same Cornell Univ. Hospital prevention plan that eliminated lawsuits soon after implementation. Just giving OBGYNs a pass on any future mistakes that causes a lifetime of disability or worse DEATH, does not solve the issue just makes it worse, and no, I am not a lawyer; I am a father of a child with CP. Boy did I see careless mistakes and coverups done.

NY docs pay out more than double the amount of money as the next closest state (PA) and have more numbers of paid lawsuits than the #2 and #3 state combined (PA and FL). As a side note: Cali is estimated to have 80,000 actively practicing physicians in it while New York State has 47,000. How the heck do we get that much malpractice trouble with a little over half the doctors? It's because NY is an obscenely litigious society and our long time Speaker of the House in Albany is a trial attorney who also works for Weitz & Luxenberg (the biggest malpractice firm in NY).

As for your personal experience.... i'm sorry to hear it.

This was far from a free pass for OBGYNs, but stuff is closing left and right because of how bad malpractice is now. With the closing of the OBGYN department of two major hospitals there is now only 1 place to have a baby in Bronx county (Montefiore), and anecdotally they are turning away women and sending them to other counties if it is not emergent since their doctors are not as well trained in handling the kind of expectant mothers that a place like Bronx-Lebanon was used to handling. By that I mean 15 years old, pre-term labor and a decent chance of substance abuse. BL closed its wing because the insurance became impossible to fund due to them handling all the high risk cases and not every baby surviving or birth deficiencies having nothing to do with the hospital (aka fetal alcohol syndrome, opiate withdrawl at birth) being brought into lawsuit under the auspices of "the child would have not been *as* sick if I had them at Columbia Presbetyrian."

and they win. or they settle. But they see money. And its just how it goes. Now people have to either not be high risk, have a private OBGYN unaffiliated with any hospital, or cross county lines to have a baby in Bronx County.
 
So you are saying that mothers with substance abuse have complications at birth. Well of course, and then have hospitals do blood tests. My wife was a Nurse Manager in Manhattan. If a mother shows any signs of drug abuse, she gets reported to the state and possibly has the baby become ward of the state. The baby also gets automatically tested with blood tests when any complications show up. I think in these cases you can rule out blame towards the OBGYN. I am talking about non-frivolous lawsuits where the Doctor made a real bad mistake, and the child has to live forever with a debilitating condition. With this new law, the Doctor gets 0 repercussions. In my book that is a pass. Like a mentioned before, Cornell had a very successful prevention plan, and soon after implementation they had no medical malpractice lawsuits for the next two years. It was a 90% improvement. This new child indemnity fund is a joke. Hospitals, Doctors, and Lawyers sacrifice nothing. In fact, the plaintiff’s lawyer’s gets all of his fees collected, the hospitals and doctors pay nothing, and the only one that gets a shaft is the poor innocent child that cannot fend for him trying to seek approval for every medical expense. Yea okay, this law is really fair for everyone!!!
 
So you are saying that mothers with substance abuse have complications at birth. Well of course, and then have hospitals do blood tests. My wife was a Nurse Manager in Manhattan. If a mother shows any signs of drug abuse, she gets reported to the state and possibly has the baby become ward of the state. The baby also gets automatically tested with blood tests when any complications show up. I think in these cases you can rule out blame towards the OBGYN. I am talking about non-frivolous lawsuits where the Doctor made a real bad mistake, and the child has to live forever with a debilitating condition. With this new law, the Doctor gets 0 repercussions. In my book that is a pass. Like a mentioned before, Cornell had a very successful prevention plan, and soon after implementation they had no medical malpractice lawsuits for the next two years. It was a 90% improvement. This new child indemnity fund is a joke. Hospitals, Doctors, and Lawyers sacrifice nothing. In fact, the plaintiff's lawyer's gets all of his fees collected, the hospitals and doctors pay nothing, and the only one that gets a shaft is the poor innocent child that cannot fend for him trying to seek approval for every medical expense. Yea okay, this law is really fair for everyone!!!

Nope. In those cases the OBGYNs still get sued. You are expected to be able to properly treat these babies. There is *no reason* for substance addicted (Except for EtOH) children to come out anything but healthy. Just as there is no reason for a 4-5 week preterm baby to be anything but healthy. Same way there is no reason for a 15 year old girl who still has an android pelvic shape to have anything but a healthy baby. But each of these three things requires some preparation before the woman even enters the birthing process in order to attain that success rate. And when you have all three happening at once, ontop of innumerable other complications there is little hope for a normal child. The precedent is there, the doctor will lose the lawsuit no matter how many drugs and complicating comorbidities the patient shows up with. Your assumption was wrong (Though I agree with you in that it *should* be as you assumed it to be). Just on this alone it points out that this needed to be done, because you thought this was something you could wave away, but the assumptions (and the common sense) do not match the reality.

Doctors totally still get reprocussions for this too. Don't forget that all current and future medical costs are still winnable, that all loss of future income (millions of dollars in babies) is still winnable, and $250,000 just for "this is unfortunate" money is still available. The doctors and his/her hospital is still 100% liable for all these things when they do wrong.

Also, please tell me more about this cornell program. I'm not familiar with it except to say that it is happening in the single wealthiest and least ethnic area of manhattan, where Cornell's medical school is. I'm being 90% serious in my curiosity because I don't know anything about it and its something I should definitely be versed on. The 10% is the bit of jest that the example you came up with is from a tiny hospital in an unbelievably affluent area.
 
Just as there is no reason for a 4-5 week preterm baby to be anything but healthy.

There is overwhelming evidence for an increased risk of short and long-term complications solely related to being delivered 4-5 weeks early (late preterm infants). Here is one of many studies on this topic.


Late-preterm birth and its association with cognitive and socioemotional outcomes at 6 years of age.

Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1124.

INTRODUCTION: Late-preterm birth (34-36 weeks' gestation) has been associated with a risk for long-term cognitive and socioemotional problems. However, many studies have not incorporated measures of important contributors to these outcomes, and it is unclear whether effects attributed to gestational age are separate from fetal growth or its proxy, birth weight for gestational age.METHOD: Data came from a study of low- and normal-weight births sampled from urban and suburban settings between 1983 and 1985 (low birth weight, n = 473; normal birth weight; n = 350). Random sampling was used to pair singletons born late-preterm with a term counterpart whose birth weight z score was within 0.1 SD of his or her match (n = 168 pairs). With random-effects models, we evaluated whether pairs differed in their IQ scores and teacher-reported behavioral problems at the age of 6 years.RESULTS: In adjusted models, late-preterm birth was associated with an increased risk of full-scale (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-4.61]) and performance (aOR: 2.04 [95% CI: 1.09-3.82]) IQ scores below 85. Late-preterm birth was associated with higher levels of internalizing and attention problems, findings that were replicated in models that used thresholds marking borderline or clinically significant problems (aOR: 2.35 [95% CI: 1.28-4.32]and 1.76 [95% CI: 1.04-3.0], respectively).CONCLUSIONS: Late-preterm birth is associated with behavioral problems and lower IQ at the age of 6, independent of maternal IQ, residential setting, and sociodemographics. Future research is needed to investigate whether thesefindings result from a reduction in gestational length, in utero (eg, obstetric complications) or ex-utero (eg, neonatal complications) factors marked by late-preterm birth, or some combination of these factors.
 
There is overwhelming evidence for an increased risk of short and long-term complications solely related to being delivered 4-5 weeks early (late preterm infants). Here is one of many studies on this topic.


Late-preterm birth and its association with cognitive and socioemotional outcomes at 6 years of age.

Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1124.

INTRODUCTION: Late-preterm birth (34-36 weeks' gestation) has been associated with a risk for long-term cognitive and socioemotional problems. However, many studies have not incorporated measures of important contributors to these outcomes, and it is unclear whether effects attributed to gestational age are separate from fetal growth or its proxy, birth weight for gestational age.METHOD: Data came from a study of low- and normal-weight births sampled from urban and suburban settings between 1983 and 1985 (low birth weight, n = 473; normal birth weight; n = 350). Random sampling was used to pair singletons born late-preterm with a term counterpart whose birth weight z score was within 0.1 SD of his or her match (n = 168 pairs). With random-effects models, we evaluated whether pairs differed in their IQ scores and teacher-reported behavioral problems at the age of 6 years.RESULTS: In adjusted models, late-preterm birth was associated with an increased risk of full-scale (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-4.61]) and performance (aOR: 2.04 [95% CI: 1.09-3.82]) IQ scores below 85. Late-preterm birth was associated with higher levels of internalizing and attention problems, findings that were replicated in models that used thresholds marking borderline or clinically significant problems (aOR: 2.35 [95% CI: 1.28-4.32]and 1.76 [95% CI: 1.04-3.0], respectively).CONCLUSIONS: Late-preterm birth is associated with behavioral problems and lower IQ at the age of 6, independent of maternal IQ, residential setting, and sociodemographics. Future research is needed to investigate whether thesefindings result from a reduction in gestational length, in utero (eg, obstetric complications) or ex-utero (eg, neonatal complications) factors marked by late-preterm birth, or some combination of these factors.

sub-85 IQ is definitely clinically relevant, and I thank you for correcting my misphrasing. But sub-85 IQ is not relevant legally (as far as I understand it, at least). I gotta figure they're more concerned with sub-70, to get a legal title of mentally handicapped, which your abstract already admits is likely more related to things that come in parcel to preterm birth, not the gestational age itself.
 
sub-85 IQ is definitely clinically relevant, and I thank you for correcting my misphrasing. But sub-85 IQ is not relevant legally (as far as I understand it, at least). I gotta figure they're more concerned with sub-70, to get a legal title of mentally handicapped, which your abstract already admits is likely more related to things that come in parcel to preterm birth, not the gestational age itself.

The risk of CP is triple in late preterm compared to term infants. (J Pediatr 2009).
 
The risk of CP is triple in late preterm compared to term infants. (J Pediatr 2009).

The primary article cited in yours (PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 3 September 2006, pp. 1207-1214 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0018) states pretty clearly that the risks for late pre-term children need to be studied more, but are likely also completely treatable/preventable and should not be leading all of these morbidities if we were better trained/prepared for the unique challenges a late premature faces.

IDK if CP is preventable...but their bigger point was that the majority are, even lowered IQ (due to associations with respiratory distress induced neurologic damage and similar "other organ system stresses the newborn brain" situations) Which was also my bigger point. That the doctors who are given impossible situations are still losing the legal suits because the current academia supports that there is no good reason for any of these individual complications to cause frequent, or any, excess neurologic issues. Yet this stuff does happen. And it's especially bad in situations like Bronx-Leb where they get hit with every adverse situation at once, but legally they are all treated as independent factors that don't weigh into each other at all when it is presented at trial.

Its a good argument that some lawsuits can be beyond the doctors control, but do deserve some monetary support system for the family. Thus the indemnity fund.
 
"New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center decreased yearly malpractice payments from $28 million between 2003 and 2006 to $3 million between 2007 and 2009, and sentinel events fell from 5 in 2000 to none in 2008 and 2009.
The hospital adopted a series of safety initiatives including training nurses and doctors to communicate better using standard terminology, adopting guidelines for Cesarean deliveries, hiring an obstetrician to cover births on nights and weekends and requiring doctors, nurses and staff to receive national certification for interpreting electronic fetal monitoring systems."


 
So you are saying that mothers with substance abuse have complications at birth. Well of course, and then have hospitals do blood tests. My wife was a Nurse Manager in Manhattan. If a mother shows any signs of drug abuse, she gets reported to the state and possibly has the baby become ward of the state. The baby also gets automatically tested with blood tests when any complications show up. I think in these cases you can rule out blame towards the OBGYN. I am talking about non-frivolous lawsuits where the Doctor made a real bad mistake, and the child has to live forever with a debilitating condition. With this new law, the Doctor gets 0 repercussions. In my book that is a pass. Like a mentioned before, Cornell had a very successful prevention plan, and soon after implementation they had no medical malpractice lawsuits for the next two years. It was a 90% improvement. This new child indemnity fund is a joke. Hospitals, Doctors, and Lawyers sacrifice nothing. In fact, the plaintiff’s lawyer’s gets all of his fees collected, the hospitals and doctors pay nothing, and the only one that gets a shaft is the poor innocent child that cannot fend for him trying to seek approval for every medical expense. Yea okay, this law is really fair for everyone!!!


If a lawyer brings a frivolous lawsuit that gets thrown out in court, nothing happens whilst the defendent must higher representation once a subpoenia is served. The lawyer loses no money, no blacklist, the lawyer continues to bring lawsuits. If the lawyer wins or settles a frivolous lawsuit, the lawyer makes $$$. Do you see why those evil and incompetent doctors would attempt to push legislation to protect themselves? The complications of child birth are so immense that tragedies can happen for a multitude of reasons.
 
On the flip side of that coin, a Doctor can get a pass with a malpractice no matter how bad or careless. Meanwhile, the child and parents of the child that is disabled or worse gets short-changed. I guess, it is how you see it or want to see it from your fish bowl. Regardless, the law as of May is not as bad as one thought it would be.
 
On the flip side of that coin, a Doctor can get a pass with a malpractice no matter how bad or careless. Meanwhile, the child and parents of the child that is disabled or worse gets short-changed. I guess, it is how you see it or want to see it from your fish bowl. Regardless, the law as of May is not as bad as one thought it would be.


The whole point of this indemnity fund is that
1) physicians are still held appropriately accountable for malpractice
and
2) parents of children that are disabled due to malpractice are compensated
 
The Fund has changed from it's original intent of protecting Hospitals, Insurance companies, and Doctors. Yes, the fund is now law, but all future rewards have to be annualized in case of insufficient state funds, hence the defendants will have to pay not the state. So the burden is not entirely on the tax payers. I also heard that once annualized the state administrators will not enter in the decision process of what medical expenses get paid or not. As long as the annual amount is met, it is fine.
 
Top