Posted on 07/14/2007 8:31:02 PM PDT by zendari
AUSTIN -- An influx of doctors lured to Texas by new limits on malpractice lawsuits has overwhelmed the state board that screens candidates for medical licenses, creating a backlog that forces many applicants to wait months before they can start seeing patients.
Officials said many of the relocating physicians are filling shortages in areas such as Beaumont, where trauma patients previously had to be flown other cities because there weren't enough surgeons to treat them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Good for Texas.
Are the lawyers fleeing in the other direction?
Sounds win/win.
Do the new applicants have Italian tablecloths on their heads?
It’s one of the reasons that I like Romney in this upcoming election. He’s actually talking tort reform on a national level, and it makes a heck of a lot of sense.
>>>The average malpractice insurance premiums in Texas have fallen by 21.3 percent since 2003, when lawmakers and voters implemented a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in malpractice cases<<<
It’s amazing what taking the greed/ambulance-chaser out of a situation will do.
LOL....(even though the reality of it isn’t so funny)
Those doctors can always set up practice in Mexico while they’re waiting for Texas to approve them.
It might help doctor's malpractice premiums, but it hasn't done anything to lower the cost of healthcare insurance.
Since these doctors are mostly already qualified in other states, the foot-dragging on Texas approvals is purely a scam to protect the local guild.
One other point the article omits..Not only will Texans have access to more doctors..but logic suggests that they will also end up getting BETTER doctors to boot..an added bonus..
Tort reform will help lower medical costs or at least the rate of growth. Doctors often order tests for that one in a million case to avoid a lawsuit. Defensive medicine is not a myth.
For example CT scans are ordered 24/7 for headaches. Rarely is an abnormality found. And even rarer is an abnomality detected that will have effective early treatment and positively alter outcomes.
I doubt that. The article is pretty clear that it's lack of personnel to check applications, and they've just hired more. From reading it, it sounds like some local doctors are eagerly waiting for the approvals so they can get additional help and cut their workload. Even if these docs are qualified in other states, they have to do a thorough check. All it takes is one bad apple to screw up and then have the media find the approval process wasn't as thorough as they think it should be.
Meanwhile, in states like Pennsylvania where the scumbag "jackpot justice" trial lawyers have a Democrat governor in their pocket, physicians can't flee fast enough.
Bad Doctors + Liability Caps = Worst Nighmare
You mean good for bad doctors, bad for patients.
Someone screws up my health, I don't want to hear about a cap.
That would be one reason I would NOT support Romney. Where in the Constitution does it give the power of the Federal government to limit local lawsuits. I don't support ambulance chasers, but Texas is a beautiful example of States exercising their sovereign powers. Liberal states, like Michigan, will have a shortage of physicians while conservative states, like Texas will have a surplus.
I'm afraid that some conservatives have also lost the meaning of the state sovereignty.
You get compensated for the damage to your health, even with caps. The caps are on noneconomic damages.
Also, with an influx of supply, demand diminishes, thus causing health-care costs to go down due to all of the new competition.
I think it depends on jurisdiction. If claims can be filed in federal courts, Congress has the ability to set the limits.
The present system of liability, in medical and other situations, is much like a lottery. There is no way everybody who is damaged can be compensated at the huge levels some get.
So what happens is some get an enormous payout, and most get nothing.
A system where everybody gets reasonable compensation would make a whole lot more sense, even if total payouts were greater. But such a system won’t make trial lawyers rich.
LOL!
I have no love for insurance companies. Some doctor screws up my health, my life, I don't want to hear some insurance corporation toadie telling me to be "reasonable".
Thats good news that Romney is talking tort reform. As a businessman he knows the economic damage unlimited jackpot lawsuits are doing to America.
A 21.3% decline in malpractice insurance I’d like to see it go down further.. but its moving in the right direction, a lot better then democrat states where it seems to grow each year.
>>>Where in the Constitution does it give the power of the Federal government to limit local lawsuits.<<<
Well, if you’d like to know, namely Article 16, or The Commerce Clause.
It sounds all nice and pretty to hold the federalist line, but the reality of the matter is that lawyers are venue shopping and have been for decades. And it has affected interstate commerce, to put it mildly.
Don’t like the laws of 49 other states? Go sue in South Dakota with that one freak law that allows you a loophole in which to press your suit. The Commerce Clause is directly related to this particular instance in the case of a company that does business in South Dakota and the many other states.
In short, the laws of the states are being subverted by lawyers who know perfectly well which states are free-game for lawsuits. And that’s what we’re seeing very frequently. Last year, US corporations spent more on litigation expenses than they spent on Research and Development.
Our nation is one that depends on staying ahead of the rest of the world in technology. It’s the only way US companies and the salaries they pay remain competitive with other parts of the world. And yet only Germany and Canada have higher corporate taxes than we have in the US. And there’s no more litigious society on earth.
And you expect us to keep our economic superiority with the systems we have in place?
Tort reform on a federal level is needed. And badly. Doesn’t mean that individual states can’t make stiffer laws, but particularly as it related to interstate commerce and venue shopping, we need tort reform. It’s far too easy to show that plaintiff X has business that was harmed in South Dakota and thus should be able to sue there as opposed to California, where a less than friendly law is in place.
Almost without exception medical malpractice claims are filed in state courts. Federal courts are of “limited jurisdiction” meaning they can only hear cases that the federal laws provide, while state courts are of “general jurisdiction” meaning anything under the sun. I think you might have a case against the federal government in the situation of the VA hospitals and doctors, I am not sure, but I do know about the state/federal issue facing most doctors and patients: it’s in the state courts.
I think the “non-economic” means pain and suffering. The economic damages from the loss of ability to work, etc., is not capped. It is what is you are expected to earn over the remainder of your lifetime were you to not have suffered whatever medical malpractice related injury occurred.
Pain and suffering, if you recall, relates to such injuries and awards as the infamous multi-million dollar award for the hot coffee spilled on a lady’s lap in Louisiana, IIRC/.
“Calling all quacks to Texas.
Bad Doctors + Liability Caps = Worst Nighmare”
The Breck Girl, is that you?????
Article 16 has been abused more by Congress than any other statute or Article of the Constitution that I know of. The Constitution was meant to regulate the Government, not the people (statutes and codes that don't subvert the Constitution are for the government to regulate the people).
>>>You mean good for bad doctors, bad for patients.<<<
It depends what you mean.
Let’s say you’re a woman about to give birth. You can bet you’re far more likely to receive a C-section in a litigious state. Is that somehow better for you? Having a doctor leave a permanent scar on your body with a risk of infection because men like John Edwards like to take on phony lawsuits.
It’s funny, my torts professor opened our discussion of medical malpractice by stating that between 85 and 90% of medical malpractice suits were without merit. But most of those would settle out of court for a nice lump sum because it was even more expensive to litigate them.
Every single doctor—good or bad—is paying for these fraudulent lawsuits. And every single one of them is acting defensively.
You can bet you’re spending more time in the hospital, receiving far more tests, and paying more as a result of these suits. I’m in med school now. I have doctors constantly explaining how not to be sued, and most of the time, it involved unnecessary tests.
A reasonable attitude for you as an individual.
When applied to society as a whole we get the whole medical malpractice insurance, doctors driven out of business, defensive medicine, venue-shopping, liability-avoiding, trial lawyer enriching mess we have today.
Millions of people got lung cancer because they smoked. There is no way each of them can get a $10M settlement. So a few get $10M and the vast majority get nothing.
Lottery. Great for the winners and their attorneys. Everybody else loses.
Malpractice limits and a glut of doctors sounds to me like Texas is in for some very affordable health care!
The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate local lawsuits only because the liberal Supreme Court “inferred” that right. The expansion of Congressional power via the liberal Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause is one of the worst atrocities the Supreme Court has committed.
And, although forum-shopping does occur and can be a problem, let’s remember that a litigant must have proper venue to sue in any particular court. I can’t just randomly file my lawsuit in a state with more lenient medmal recovery laws. Tort reform on a federal level is needed - meaning that Congress should implement caps on medmal awards in federal court. BUT, as another FReeper pointed out, most lawsuits of this nature are filed in state court because a federal court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case (ie, diversity of citizenship).
It is supposed to be “table cloth and fan belt” to complete the description.
Basically correct, yeah.
So, in your opinion, what’s the answer?
I’d rather see a state medical board empowered to punish bad doctors as well as administratively award damages without caps, thereby eliminating trials and putting every last one of you vampires out of business.
Far more money would go to those legitimately injured by real malpractice, and not one penny would be siphoned off by the likes of John Edwards.
Stop right there. All we need to know. Malpractice lawyers are just barely above terrorists on the scum rating.
Its out of the feds hands, civil actions fall under a State's tort rules.
While my niece's husband was doing a research fellowship on Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery, a new procedure specialty, he told me he was getting offers from medical schools and hospitals from all across the US. He was only considering offers from four states that have caps like Texas. He would reply to all others that they should "get with the program" if they intended to attract research neurosurgeons of national stature.
He ended up accepting a huge offer from Vanderbilt's Medical College and an Associate Professorship. Vanderbilt pays his malpractice insurance.
The must pass the Mexican equivalent of the NCLEX exam first. Everything they know has to be done in fluent Spanish. That takes about 6 months of daily study. Just like the nice nurses that come here have to pass the exam in English before they get sponsored.
Which we did.
and John Edwards has the opposite effects. He taked lack of good and extensive medical care and reduced quality of life where ever he practices his work.
Something to keep in mind with his two Americas theme.
But since state medical boards have only public safety and protection of the patient in mind, then identifying a bad doctor coming into Texas wold take one phone call.
But if, on the other hand, state boards are protecting bad doctors, then Texas is better off replacing its board with competing private certifiers. The backlog of approvals would disappear in a twinkle.
Amen, spoken like a true conservative.
Marhabba! Ah, you are a Saudi left coaster, I am strictly Gulf coast. Never went diving in Yanbu but spent plenty of time in the Abu Ali island waters.
Tell this to the high priest of the Z-Visa that spouted a background check in only 24 hours for over 20,000,000 insurgents. How really dense can they be to think we would by this rubbish?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.