Finger pointing among the rich and (sometimes) famous

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 1/9/02 | Michael M. Bates

[mikeb704]

A national debate is emerging over medical insurance rates paid by physicians. In addition to having a genuine impact on the health of many Americans, it’ll be interesting because of the dynamics. Rich trial lawyers and rich doctors and rich insurance companies are looking to place the blame on one another.

In West Virginia, about two dozen surgeons have stopped operating – literally – to protest malpractice insurance costs. The only trauma center in Las Vegas closed for more than a week last July when surgeons there stopped working because of the escalating costs of protecting themselves from lawsuits.

Last year, some physicians in rural parts of Oregon and Ohio stopped delivering babies. This week, Pennsylvania’s Governor-elect averted a threatened walkout by some physicians by proposing a one-time assessment from the state’s health insurance firms to pay for the doctors’ premiums. Bet the insurance companies will be loving that.

Closer to home, Illinois is one of 30 states designated by the American Medical Association as being "in trouble" when it comes to malpractice insurance costs. Sunday’s Alton Telegraph carried a story about local doctors who’ve left the area because of insurance expenses. One gastroenterologist relocated to Missouri and now saves over $50,000 a year in premiums.

The bad guys in all this, according to many in the medical field, are the trial lawyers who, through frivolous lawsuits and unjustifiable requests for multimillion-dollar jury awards, have driven malpractice expenses through the roof. One widely touted solution is to place a cap on non-economic damages. A patient would still be eligible for all lost wages, medical and rehabilitation expenses and any other economic damages. The damages for the very popular "pain and suffering," however, would be limited to an amount set by law. In California, this is $250,000.

Limiting damages won’t lower malpractice premiums, assert the trial lawyers. Of course, they say this while ignoring that the median jury award for medical malpractice jumped from $700,000 to $1,000,000 in just one year. According to Jury Verdict Research, from 1999 to 2000 the median award increased by more than 40 percent. The problem in the view of the lawyers is that the insurance companies are raising rates not because of the bigger payouts, but because the companies have suffered severe losses in their stock market investments. The lawyers’ solution is for the government to crack down on insurance companies with more regulations.

For their part, the insurance companies point to how large medical malpractice awards have affected their bottom line. The Insurance Information Institute predicted last year that companies would soon be paying out $1.40 for every dollar collected in premiums. Some carriers have completely left the market. State regulators have stopped others, because of their weakened financial condition, from providing any additional coverage. Limit the liability on lawsuit awards, urges the insurance industry, or expect medical malpractice crises in most states.

Medical malpractice happens. No one questions that. We all agree that if a patient is injured because of malpractice, he is entitled to an equitable settlement. And there’s the rub. Equitable and fair and just all have different meanings to different people. For some reason, many times when several people join together as a jury, reason flies out of the window. Huge awards are made with no thought of the ultimate consequences.

Now we’re seeing some of those consequences: Fewer practicing doctors, fewer medical facilities, less choice and, at least in some pockets of the country, healthcare jeopardized.

The rich trial lawyers and rich doctors and rich insurance companies want the government to solve the problem, each in their own way. And we know how good government is at solving problems.

[HLPfiver]

I love how liberals point their fingers at 'evil' doctors who choose to leave bad jobs for better ones but defend the right of any other union to paralyze our economy by striking.

It's not anyone's responsibility to become a doctor, or to practice medicine. If blood-sucking lawyers make the profession so unattractive to future students that we end up with no physicians, will liberals castigate smart people who don't go to medical school? Under the current status quo, I would expect our best and brightest to become lawyers instead. Apparently, that's where the real money is.

[mikeb704]

I also find it interesting that Democrats - who get most of the trial lawyers' political contributions - are supposedly so devoted to high quality healthcare for everyone, yet don't appear bothered with doctors who either have to stop practicing or move to other areas.

[maica]

Medical school enrollment is already over 50% women.
Men are not as willing to pursue a career which has as many obstructions and strings as medicine is getting daily.