GOP Seek Caps on Ob-Gyn Malpractice Only

AP ^ | Feb. 12, 2004 | AP

[prairiebreeze]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans are planning a fresh effort to limit medical malpractice awards, focusing on doctors who stop delivering babies because of soaring insurance bills.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is considering forcing a vote on legislation that would cap awards only for obstetricians and gynecologists just after the Senate returns from recess on Feb. 23, an aide said Thursday.

Democrats last year blocked a bill that would have limited damages across a range of cases. Frist said recently a broad bill would again be defeated.

"I will use whatever creative strategic things I can to pass legislation. The direction will largely be focusing on different areas," the Tennessee Republican said.

He suggested two possibilities. As a result of rising malpractice insurance premiums, Frist said, "Trauma centers have closed and ob/gyns are being decimated."

The legislation still is expected to include a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, commonly known as pain and suffering, said several lawmakers.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, said the legislation's limited reach would not soften Democratic opposition. He suggested Republicans are more interested in election-year votes.

"This is not a genuine effort to pass a bill. ... It's unfortunate that the White House and Republican strategy is confrontation and symbolic votes and wait for the election," Durbin said.

The American Medical Association is a leading proponent of limiting malpractice damages, arguing that frivolous lawsuits are driving rapidly increasing insurance premiums for doctors. In several states, ob/gyns have said higher insurance bills are forcing them to stop delivering babies.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is fighting caps, saying that insurers' poor returns on investments are largely responsible for the increases and that state-imposed caps on damages do not lead to reductions in insurance premiums.

[prairiebreeze]

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, said the legislation's limited reach would not soften Democratic opposition. He suggested Republicans are more interested in election-year votes.

Durbin is the slimiest of the slimey.

But maybe this article will appeal to some of complainers around FR.

Prairie

[Ron in Acreage]

What doctors need to do is stop carrying malpractice insurance altogether. Make their patients sign a waiver to be treated or go elsewhere. My wifes ObyGyn did just that. The first thing you see when you walk in his waiting room is a sign that states he does not have malpractice insurance. Waivers must be signed. If not please leave. He's delivered both of my kids and is an awesome doctor.

[prairiebreeze]

I'm not sure that tactic would work in all states. Lots of waivers are signed by patients for physicians, hospitals etc. but they still get sued even though the patient signed that they had informed consent as to the risks.

Prairie

[Ron in Acreage]

That's true. My wife is a paralegal for a large personal injury firm. We argue about this fairly often on why someone can still sue after they sign waivers. It's the judges that allow it to happen. Most judges and lawyers are social friends also. It's a very incestuous "club".

[Maynerd]

I am not sure "going naked" is a legally effective means to avoid lawsuits. There is nothing to prevent a patient from going after a physician's personal assets if he does not carry malpractice insurance. In addition, most hospitals will not give "priviledges" to a physician who does not carry insurance.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps they can just do what they did here in Northern New Mexico; they left.

[Ron in Acreage]

Personal assets cannot be touched. My wifes doc had no insurance. Both kids were born in a hospital. No problem. Florida.

[longtermmemmory]

This is not a bad idea. This is the most problematic and emotional area. You have to be almost inhuman to not want to do something to help a baby with problems even if the big rich insurance company , oops, the doctor did not do anything wrong.

There have programs across the country where therey are caps on these specific types of situations and they set up a trust fund to provide for such problem births. As part of it, you exchange your right to sue.

This is better than biting off the whole monster, especiall where each area and specialty has unique problems.

[oceanview]

caps are fine.

but most frivolous lawsuits take place in the 10-50K range, because the insurance companies settle, and the lawyers get alot of "quick hits" on those cases without having to even mount a case or go into court, just by filing the lawsuit. that's where the real fraud and abuse is.

[longtermmemmory]

You can't waive negligence.

[LenS]

So this is PA Governor Ed Rendell's reelection plan -- let the GOP at the federal level solve the medical malpractice problem for him. That way he doesn't anger his bankers, the trial lawyers in PA, since it will all be Bush's fault, without getting voters annoyed that they can't find a doctor.

That's Rendell's governing strategy -- get the next higher level of govt. to handle it for him.

[prairiebreeze]

Those settlements travel right back to our own pockets.

I nearly had to serve as a juror in a civil case where not only was the husband suing as plaintiff but the wife was too. She wasn't hurt at all in the "incident" (frankly, I'm not sure he was all that hurt either, just wanted to sue the airlines) but she was filing for all her emotional distress, dontchaknow.

Pathetic. Airline fees going up is what's paid for these fools settlement which they undoubtedly got. And yup, airline fees went up.

Prairie

[Maynerd]

Curious. I have a number of FL MD friends. They tell me nearly every medical society meeting and staff meeting they attend focuses on personal asset protection.

I hope you're correct. I know three MD's who pulled the ripcord on FL in the past year. One of them joined the Navy. He said he would rather face Al Qaida than trial lawyers!

[valkyrieanne]

Yes, I have heard of Florida as a state where MDs can more easily "go bare." Unfortunately many other states don't have the same provisions. Also, hospitals in other states won't let "bare" physicians have hospital privileges.

It's a good idea, in general. Then it's up to the patient to decide whether they really want to trust the doctor or not. If they don't trust him, then they shouldn't use his services. Let them go find someone insured to the hilt, and take the consequences of having defensive, "risk-management" medicine practiced on them.

[Ron in Acreage]

Exactly. At least the patient will have the choice and all the legal cards are laid on the table. If this were to happen widespread , the trial lawyers would scream to the hilt.