Posted on 02/08/2010 4:58:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Now that a stake has been driven through the heart of the omnibus healthcare bill proposed and drafted by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis (with an assist from Henry Waxman), we can get down to real reform. The President has stated that he wants to work with Republicans. Then let’s start with the most obvious cost control factor – malpractice/tort reform.
There is some truth to Democratic claims that several of the proposed reforms are interlocking and thus to address one specific issue might be difficult to accomplish. However, this in no way justifies their ridiculous proposal, including its huge growth in the federal government and its invasive government panels.
Unfortunately, the Democrats ignored the biggest opportunity for cost reduction: eliminating spurious lawsuits and getting ambulance-chasing lawyers out of the medical malpractice business. It is also clear that this reform is not interdependent on other reforms.
Doctors spend an enormous amount of time and effort protecting themselves from lawyers and avoiding lawsuits. They order extensive, expensive tests whose only purpose is to protect themselves from lawyers, and pay outrageous malpractice insurance fees just to rid themselves of these predators. Once lawyers get involved, a doctor’s world is always turned upside down.
Consider what happens in these situations. A lawyer takes on a case for someone who has real or imagined harm. The lawyer has no medical training except for the knowledge they have gained from working on other lawsuits. They run up significant costs that they front for the client, and then pursue a legal remedy. Frequently the insurance company settles (makes payment) to the litigant to minimize outlays. If not, the case goes to court in front of a judge (i.e., a lawyer) or jury, neither of whom typically has any medical training. Either way, the lawyer is reimbursed all the up-front costs plus 33-40% of the remaining funds. The person filing the case is often left with less than half of the proceeds.
We need to stop entrusting these issues to unqualified people through a legal system established mostly to enrich the participants as opposed to the truly harmed. Lawyers have no special knowledge or expertise to determine harm in these situations and neither do judges. We have allowed this system to get out of control and we, the American people, must insist that if any change is made to our medical system it starts right here.
Toward that end, I have a proposal. We need to establish a separate forum to handle claims of medical malpractice. We must accept that as dedicated as our medical personnel may be, mistakes are occasionally made due to stress, confusion or just human error, and the people who are harmed should be justly compensated for those mistakes. In addition, there is occasionally a bad apple in the medical field whose care and concern for patients does not meet established standards. Those patients should be compensated for any harm done to them.
The proposal that I suggest is to establish a five-person panel. The panel would consist of two retired judges, two retired doctors and one retired, respected businessperson. There would also be a Medical Advocate’s office – skilled in the issues of medical procedures due to their exclusive focus on medical claims and disputes – that would represent the patient. The advocates would be salaried employees, much like a public defender or district attorney, with no direct financial benefit from winning the case. The accused, be it a doctor or medical facility, would be able to have their own representative to defend themselves against any charges.
Any outcome would be decided by the five-person panel. The panel would not only understand the law, but would actually be able to examine the charges made against the accused and provide an educated medical analysis of any harm done. The businessperson would be able to judge credibility of the business practices used and weigh the economic effects of the decisions being made. The result would be a balanced decision made with analysis of all the ramifications – medical, legal and economic. No longer would lawyers be profiteering on the backs of the medical system and the American people.
I realize that this proposal has little chance of being adopted. After all, the trial lawyers have their hands so deep in the pockets of the Democrats you might assume they were Siamese twins. Despite “reforming” almost all aspects of the medical system in a bill rumored to have ballooned to over 2,600 pages, the Democrats managed to merely “suggest” that the nation might consider a pilot program for malpractice reform.
The Democrats have to decide whether they care more about American people or American lawyers. They have to decide whether they want to truly control the costs of our healthcare system or just launch platitudes. Ultimately the American people will have to choose between their doctors and their attorneys. The two just do not mix, and the national interest is clearly not being served. If they decide for the medical professionals – as they should – the Democrats will need to make real change, or have real change forced upon them: retirement.
I approve this message.
I've seen this movie scene too many times, whether it was Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, or Freddy Kruger in so many movies. I'm not willing to drop my guard as long as the tyrant and the San Francisco socialist are in power.
This is how John Edwards bought the position of Senator from NC.
I still remember the stink surrounding a “Divorce attorney rodeo” commercial. It was forced off the air on the grounds it played off of emotions.
Now we get a steady barrage of “let’s sue ‘bad drug’ and evil business” commercials. No emotions being played off with those, is there...
Siamese twins? The majority of them ARE lawyers. Why do we keep putting lawyers in instead of regular folk. That should be a major focus this fall...no more lawyers elected!!!
Indiana has a comprehensive Medical Malpractice Act that limits the frivolous med-mal lawsuits. All med-mal claims have to be submitted to a “Medical Review Panel” composed of physicians in the medical specialty. They conduct their own inquiry into the facts of the claim and render an opinion. The opinion then becomes evidence in Court and is pretty much binding on the parties.
As a result it’s actually difficult for plaintiff attorneys to proceed with a med-mal claim. I had a relative who suffered a hole burned in his intestine during gall bladder surgery. He had trouble fining an attorney to take his case.
I would point out that I don’t consider medical costs in Indiana to be particularly low. I had shoulder surgery last year to repair a torn rotator cuff. The bill was pretty salty.
Tort reform is not a be-all end-all cure for a costly medical system, but it is a valuable component. The real key to reduce medical costs is to instill price competition in the industry, and provide market incentives for medical providers to give the best treatment for the lowest price.
1) Allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines in a regional fashion. Imagine being able to choose between 15-20 different plans anywhere in the USA--the price competition will seriously cut the premium price in no time flat.
2) Emphasize immediate payment for medical costs and lost wages in lawsuits, and make the losing side pay for all court costs. That right there would mean lawyers will have to work a LOT harder to file cases with REAL merit.
IBD Editorial:
“Trial lawyers helped create a medical crisis through malpractice suits that raise costs while driving doctors from their practices.
Old Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards won $175 million in judgments over a 12-year period suing doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, everyone but the candy stripers, over infant cerebral palsy cases allegedly caused by mishandled deliveries.
As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in a study in 2003, cerebral palsy could not be blamed in the “vast majority” of cases on delivery trouble. Edwards enriched himself by using bad science to bankrupt innocent physicians. …
The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers says about 10% of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5% to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333759404527100
John Edwards, is a really special kind of creep.
Ditto!
It's worked extremely well in Mississippi. Liability insurance costs down 42% since tort reform enacted in 2004.
The democrats keep spewing some CBO BS that medical malpractice lawsuits only contribute 2 to 3 percent of health care costs (5 to 10 billion dollars is often quoted). I have heard studies that peg the number at 100 to 200 billion dollars a year. The republicans need to stone up and start refuting this nonsense.
I’d happily settle for a bounty on the tongues of the ACLU Communist plague rats.
what about the juries that APPROVE these verdicts?
what about the excess number of law schools?
what about doctors who carry no malpractice insurance leaving wronged patients’ lives ruined or dead?
BTW the author misses several issues on medical malpractice in addition to juries. The author forgets EACH SIDE has medical experts, develope the case to prove the claim, AND when there is a cap public hospitals have zero incentive to settle any claim.
I think cross border insurance sale is a good start.
If Doctors want malpractice reform that ALL of them should be required to be insured against their errors.
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.