Posted on 02/22/2005 5:11:05 PM PST by neverdem
As long as the trial lawyers donate out the wazoo (mostly to Dems), that won't happen.
And for those who blame the insurers, perhaps the insurers are in a bind now because of prior lawsuits?
Lawyers = Scourge on Society
aren't hired-gun "expert witnesses," i.e. greedy M.D.'s, a big part of the problem? Doctor's sticking it to Doctor's, in the vernacular here.
You are exactly right. On top of that the chart shows payment for medical claims. Does that include cost of defense and other associated claims expenses? Secondly, liability claims are not like auto crashes where you can run down and get a repair estimate. It takes years and years for them to wind through the court system. Does this chart show what the insurance companies have reserved for pending claims? (Having said all that, I realize the answers may be in the article but I couldn't read it closely due to its gross inaccuracies.)
At least on the defense side of things, the expert witnesses make a set rate that is set by the insurance companies and/or defense law firms. Nice try though.
on the plaintiff side of things, can you get a case to court without a hired gun M.D. setting a preposterous "Standard of care?"
I've no reason to defend insurance companies or big business, it's just simple facts in this one case.
They are a "part" of the problem, you are correct...
Unfortunately, there are a subset of MD's that will say just about anything for the right amount of cash...at least, that's the way I see it, since some of the court testimony I have read from Physician's is just beyond the realm of reasonable interpretations of current science. Just google the web for "medical expert witness" and you will see the multitude of the physicians for hire.
Not that they are always wrong...there are physicians that should be removed from practice, and not all lawsuits are frivolous.
My mentor at Johns Hopkins used to review medmal cases for both plaintiffs and defendants...his logic was that the truly indefensible cases of medical malpractice demanded that a physician step up and testify to remove the physician from practice, and that the physician being unjustly sued demanded that his fellow physicians speak up on his behalf. I wish I had the stomach for that, but to be honest with you, I do not. I have testified in Court only once on behalf of a partner who was being sued based on the expert testimony obtained from someone that I trained with (the plaintiff's expert witness did not know I was this guy's partner). The "expert witness" was lying out his a$$ in his testimony with regard as to "how he was trained", and I knew that first hand. After my depostion was presented to the "expert witness" and he became aware of who I was and what I had to say to refute his testimony, he tried to remove himself from the case. To make a long story short, it was a very uncomforable time for the "expert witness" after I related a list of about 10 other MD's that practiced with this guy that would refute his testimony.
At the trial, I had to testify and I must say, even though I knew I was in the right, I did not enjoy the experience at all. The plaintiff's "expert witness" failed to show up having refused to now testify and the case was decided for my new partner in about 20 min after the jury was sent to deliberations.
Sorry for the long reply, but you struck a nerve with the "expert witness" topic...
Neither am I an apologist for insurance companies but this article doesn't really touch upon some of the basics, which makes it suspect to me. As you point out, ultimate costs are difficult to project. In the chart on this thread they refer to claim payments. If they have excluded reserves on ongoing claims that are winding through the court system, it seems like deliberate misrepresentation of the costs insurance companies face. For the earlier years that might not be as big of an issue (since it's more likely the older claims would be settled) but in 2003 that wide gap might be easily explained.
Texas passed malpractice reform telling citizens the doctors will charge less in the future. Could you explain why we have not seen any reduction in fees.
If you think Doctors determine their rates, you are largely mistaken. While Doctors negotiate their fees with insurance companies for private payors, they have their rates dictated for Medicare/Medicaid by the government.
It is not a linear relationship.
For example, over the past 5-6 years since I have been in private practice after leaving the military and becoming an "anesthesia business" owner, I see both sides of the equation. Every year, we negotiate with the insurance carriers over "unit" reimbursement.
I always thought it funny that the insurance carrier would give us a 1-3% increase in unit rates, but I would see my cost of providing health insurance benefits for my employees increase by 10-15%.
Kind of strange, but private payors are linking their reimbursements to medicare/medicaid increases, while not keeping the cost of their policies limited to the same increases in rates offered by the government....
Whoever said that the cost of healthcare would decrease if malpractice reform was passed is guilty of wishful thinking, and they probably reasoned that an increase in the number of physicians (in a better medical practice environment) would increase competition and therefore decrease costs. Sounds good, but malpractice rates are only a portion of a Doctor's costs to provide a service, and as I mentioned, the relationship between med malpractice rates and costs to the end-user are not linear and certainly not going to be apparent immediately at any rate.
I'm not that proficient at explaining things like this in this kind of forum (typing at a keyboard). But, I will say this...if the cost of malpractice premiums was "transparent" to physicians (i.e., I could pass the cost on to the consumer in a full manner) it wouldn't be this much of an issue other than the fact that patients would be justifiably mad.
Suffice it to say that Doctors unlike a lot of other businessmen do not possess the ability to set rates for their services without input/restrictions from government and other payors.
Wisconsin is one. We have a cap, and a patient compensation fund. My ER groups malpractice rates have FALLEN the last 5 years.
We are now seeing a fair number of refugees from Illinois, fleeing the malpractice hell in that state. There are no Neurosurgeons in Illinois south of Springfield. If you need your head cracked you have to get flown to St Louis.
Appreicate the clear response. Thanks.
As Dickens said "The law is an ass"
What's preposterous about that?
a "standard of care" is a subjective assessment, given credence in court, due to the supposed expertise of the witness. For example, John Edwards undoubtedly won many of his cases (and I have only superficial knowledge, admittedly) on the testimony that this or that delivery should have been by C-section. Ethrane's reply above demonstrates amply the actual performance of an expert witness.
You seem to be under the incorrect impression that the plaintiff's attorney gets to set what is the "standard of care."
nope--I'm under the correct impression that the "standard of care" is open to debate in the court room. Who do you suppose sets the"Standard of Care?"
Essentially, the jury does. After listening to the experts for each side give their best arguments, it's in the hands of the jury, scary as that may be.
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.