I read it. Still too much government involvement. Also, is there anything limiting frivolous lawsuits?
I love HSAs and stashed a bunch of money in to one for about a year when working for local government. Then, for some reason, it was discontinued. Normal people won’t contribute voluntarily — not if a big screen TV or speed boat seems like a better option than saving.
“Also, is there anything limiting frivolous lawsuits?”
Yes. The current law. That’s the part the insurance company shills don’t want to tell you about. “Frivolous” lawsuits tend to not go very far.
parsy, who will send you a link.
No health care plan is complete until it ends the lawsuit abuse that affects virtually everyone. Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health care costs and result in reduced access to care. Unfortunately, terrible, indefensible mistakes do happen in the healthcare field. When they do, patients should have the right to fair legal representation and fair compensation. However, our current medical tort litigation system often serves the interest of lawyers while driving up costs and delaying justice. The crisis has two components.
The first component is the financial burden on health care providers. Instead of offering you lower prices for their services, American doctors pay as much as $126 billion to protect themselves from lawsuits49 while only 17 percent of lawsuits filed involve actual physician negligence.50 Defensive medicine adds another $70 billion to health care costs.51
The second component is the negative effect on patients. The costs doctors must pay to purchase medical malpractice insurance drives up the cost of care for patients. Furthermore, doctors perform unnecessary medical tests, not for the patient’s benefit, but for the doctors’ benefit to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. The high costs of “defensive medicine” and litigation cause patient care to suffer. When the cost of insurance becomes too high, many doctors relocate or retire prematurely, thereby reducing patients’ access to care. One national study released in 2007 found that America wastes $589 billion on excessive tort litigation.
Additionally, this study indicates that by reforming the civil justice system, 2.4 to 4.3 million more Americans would have access to affordable health insurance coverage. 52 States have attempted numerous solutions to this problem with varying levels of success. The solution traditionally offered to this crisis is some form of cap on patient damages. This was the approach taken by California in the 1970s and it has created a stable medical‐legal environment within the state. States have also begun to explore other options that are just as capable, if not more so, of addressing the second component of this problem—adequately compensating patient injury and improving patient care.
The crucial challenge of medical liability reform calls for innovative, results‐oriented solutions in the form of specialized health courts or other state‐designed options. This is the best way to limit lawsuit abuse without limiting legal justice.
Under this Act, the federal government would financially assist states in establishing solutions to medical tort litigation. These alternatives will offer injured patients the opportunity to receive compensation quickly and fairly—without ultimately losing their access to traditional court systems. At the same time, this Act will help states ensure the accessibility of care for everyone by stopping the rising costs of medical malpractice litigation in this country. Each alternative is entirely run by the state, not the federal government, enabling each state to tailor its solution to its own needs. States may not preclude any party to a dispute from having legal representation at any point in any of the alternatives. Specific solutions include:
Establishing an Expert Panel to Resolve Medical Disputes
Medical malpractice trials often become a “battle of the experts.” Each party hires an expert to testify, and the most convincing expert gains the trust of the jury. Under this Act, states will ensure that experts continue to play a pivotal role in malpractice cases. Instead of the opposing parties picking their own experts, however, the head of the state agency responsible for health will appoint a panel of six independent experts to review each case. Three of the experts will be attorneys, who can bring an understanding of the law relating to the injuries alleged in each dispute. The other three experts will be medical professionals who are particularly qualified to evaluate the type of alleged injury.
The expert panel will reach a determination about whether a health care provider is responsible for a patient’s injury, and if so, what penalty is appropriate. If both the health care provider and patient are satisfied with the decision, they can accept it and end the dispute. Such a swift resolution stands in stark contrast to the months or even years of hearings, trials, and appeals that are currently necessary for a patient to receive compensation for their injuries.
Establishing Independent Health Courts with Qualified Judges for Dispute Resolution States may elect to establish a State Administrative Health Care Tribunal, or “health court” under this alternative. Each health court will be presided over by a judge with health care expertise, who can commission experts and make the same binding rulings that a state court can make. The health court makes a final, binding determination as to liability and compensation using the same legal standard that would otherwise be used in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Even at this point in the process, the parties will receive a much swifter resolution than if they had pursued their case in state court.
Nonetheless, if either party is not satisfied with the health court’s decision, this Act explicitly provides that the states receiving federal funds must allow parties to have access to state courts to appeal the decision. Combination of an Expert Panel and a Health Court The final alternative is a combination of the expert panel and health court systems above. The requirements are the same as the individual models, but this alternative requires a claim to proceed in two steps.
First, the parties must present their case to an expert panel in accordance with the above requirements.
Second, if either party is not satisfied, they must then present their case to the health court. If the parties proceed to the health court, they forfeit any award made by the expert panel.
Finally, if either party is still not satisfied with the result after these two steps, that party may file a claim in state court.
The three solutions to lawsuit abuse would create a fair and efficient system. To encourage parties to rely on these alternatives, parties that appeal to state courts; but are not satisfied with the state court’s decision; forfeit the ability to receive compensation previously awarded by the alternative system. In addition, the Act clarifies that any state that may already have an alternative to litigation in place for a specific category of disease may retain its current system for that category. However, the state must also elect one of the four models in this Act for all other diseases in order to take advantage of the funding opportunity
From the comprehensive version of the Patient's Choice Act. If you want the entire text of the bill, go to Coburn's or Ryan's website. This is a very good bill.