Replies

1) This is one of the first articles from a new city paper in Jackson, MS. Like many 'alternative weeklies,' this paper is relentlessly, unabashedly liberal. So, liberal is the Free Press that it prouldy characterizes itself as left of the main news organ in Jackson The Clarion-Ledger (which is probably the most liberal large-circulation paper in the state).

Despite its bias, this paper is very nicely crafted. Their website is better than the C-L's, the articles are long and generally well-written, the hardcopy is quite slick, and there are a minimum of advertisements. All of this leads me to believe that the paper is very well-funded. Just compare it to Jackson's other "independent"(?) paper Planet Weekly. Anyway, it is my suspicion (really just a hunch based on a reading several articles like the one above) that this paper is being funded by the members of the trial lawyer's association and the plaintiff's bar in MS.

Unfortunately, any information regarding the publisher is conspicuously absent from paper's masthead. Consequently, I'm going to have to inquire around town and see if I can find out who's behind this.

2) BTW, if anybody from CA is reads this thread, I'd really appreciate some info. and insight regarding how CA dealt with its own insurance/litigation crisis in the 1970s. I'm especially interested in your opinions regarding this journalist's characterization of its causes and CA's management of the crisis. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!

The citizens of Teaxs just passed a constitutional ammendment (1 of 22 voted on, all passed) to limit the non-economic impact settlement of insurance cases to $750k; economic impact will still be limited (lost wages, lost future wages, etc.) but pain and suffering and punishment have been limited.

14 of the top 20 contributors in the states are trial lawyers and they all heavily donate to the Democrats. Of course at least 10 of them got to share in the billion+ dollar lawyer take of the out of court tobacco settlement (a class action lawsuite sponsored by a number of states).

Needless to say, they did not like this bit of legislation (or the people who voted for it).

there are reports around the state of doctors refusing to treat trial attorneys’ families.

"There are reports of frogs refusing to carry scorpions across watercourses." Hell, why should they?

If you treat the ambulance-chasers' flesh and blood, you are going to be sued.
Why should you use your talent to help those who seek to destroy you?
and finally, physicians are only trained on human physiology. They are generally unfamiliar with demonic biology. Or veterinary practice. So what earthly good could they do trial lawyers' families?

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

Here's the link to the actual report,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf

The GAO determined that some doctors have quit and others have decreased services or become more conservative, but that actual access has not decreased. (Texas was not covered by the study). The report also says that

States with Certain Damage Caps Had Lower Recent Growth in Malpractice Premium Rates and Claims Payments

Premium rates reported for the physician specialties of general surgery,
internal medicine, and OB/GYN—the only specialties for which data were
available—were relatively stable on average in most states from the mid-
to late 1990s and then began to rise, but more slowly among states with
certain noneconomic damage caps.
49
Malpractice claims payments against
all physicians between 1996 and 2002 also tended to be lower and grew
less rapidly on average in states with these damage caps than in states
with limited reforms; however, these averages obscured wide variation
between states in any given year and for individual states from year to
year. Like the premium rate data, these claims payment data do not depict
the experience of all providers; they exclude institutional providers such
as hospitals and nursing homes, for which comprehensive data were not
available. Noneconomic

There's also this report by the GAO, which unequivocally states

""Multiple factors, including falling investment income and rising reinsurance
costs, have contributed to recent increases in premium rates in our sample
states. However, GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims—
which make up the largest part of insurers’ costs—appear to be the primary
driver of rate increases in the long run. providing certain services.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf

Notice that this article focuses on access to care, not the cost to doctors who want or need to stay in practice. The purpose of the second report is to analyze increased medical malpractice insurance rates.

That sounds like a distinct possibility.

This is just anecdotal evidence, I guess, but in Oregon OB-GYNs are jumping ship like crazy because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. I have heard of other specialties doing the same, but I can't recall which ones are involved.

"Anyway, it is my suspicion (really just a hunch based on a reading several articles like the one above) that this paper is being funded by the members of the trial lawyer's association and the plaintiff's bar in MS."

I'm not a Donna Ladd fan but I find this hard to believe. She is liberal (she calls it "progressive") as all get out but I think the JFP looks good, etc because she works her tail off. I disagree with many of her positions and can't stomach her holier-than-thou attitude (which costs her more support that she'll ever admit in conservative NE Jackson, the tax paying engine of the city, as well as Madison and Rankin counties) but she puts in a tremendous amount of effort and for that I think she deserves credit.

If you want to see more of her writings (more of the same) then go here: http://www.shutup101.com/donna/siliconlounge.html

FWIW. Three members of my immediate family are Jackson-based physicians. Not a one of has ever had a malpractice claim filed against them (two in over 30 years of practice, each), but all of them have watched their insurance premiums skyrocket. One saw their premiums increase 400% in one year. There is probably a middle ground in all of this and the machinations of malpractice insurance, whereby you aren't insuring against claims of today as much as you're insuring against potential claims that may never happen in the future, are vastly mis-understood by the general public. Ladd has demonized one side of the equation as much as she claims the other side has done. I think she missed to golden opportunity to clarify and educate the State.