Pennsivania Hospitals Brace for Doctor Walkout

Spartanburg Herald-Journal ^ | January 01, 2003 | DAVID B. CARUSO

[Captain Shady]

By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer Hospitals in eastern Pennsylvania braced for a potential New Year's Day walkout by scores of surgeons who say they can no longer afford to buy malpractice insurance policies.

But with Tuesday's midnight deadline looming, there were signs that Gov.-elect Ed Rendell might have averted a large-scale work stoppage with a proposed aid package that would reduce doctors' insurance payments by $220 million in 2003.

Several large surgical practices in northeast Pennsylvania backed off Tuesday from a threat to stop performing operations Wednesday if something wasn't done about their insurance costs.

Scranton's biggest hospital, Community Medical Center, notified state officials Tuesday that its neurosurgeons agreed to keep working, avoiding the closing of northeast Pennsylvania's only trauma center.

"It feels like a huge weight has been lifted off our shoulders," said hospital spokeswoman Jane Gaul.

It was unclear whether doctor shutdowns would be avoided altogether.

At least 21 hospitals in southeastern Pennsylvania expected to experience some service shortages on Wednesday, according to the Delaware Valley Healthcare Council, a lobbying group that represents hospitals.

Most of the doctors threatening to stop work were surgeons, but some doctors in specialties where lawsuits are more common, like obstetrics, had also said they might curtail their practices.

Gov. Mark Schweiker said he didn't expect a crisis, but warned that there might be "pockets" around the state where patients would have trouble finding specialists.

Weeks ago, hundreds of doctors had been poised to stop working on New Year's Day to protest high premiums.

The Pennsylvania Medical Society said that in early December, at least 1,100 doctors were still looking for affordable insurance for the new year. Hundreds have since bought policies, but the society predicted there would still be many who would stop practicing on Jan. 1.

Those who have agreed to keep working are banking that Rendell - a Democrat who doesn't take office for another three weeks - can persuade the Republican-controlled Legislature to accept his plan.

Debate over the proposal isn't likely until midwinter.

"Our hope is that Rendell will be true to his word, and put through the reforms he has proposed," said neurosurgeon Steven Barrer of Abington Memorial Hospital in suburban Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania law requires surgeons to buy $1 million in medical liability insurance, plus pay into a state fund that helps pay court judgments that exceed the limits on their private policies.

For some doctors, the combined premiums can cost as much as $150,000 a year. Other doctors unable to obtain private coverage because of their claims history have been forced to turn to a state insurance plan that can cost as much as $300,000 a year.

Rendell's proposal would slash doctor payments to the state medical liability fund, and instead have health insurance companies pay for the fund through a one-time "assessment." Insurers haven't said whether they will fight the plan.

Surgeons in some specialties could save $30,000 to $50,000 a year under Rendell's plan.

Meanwhile, West Virginia officials doubted they could prevent a similar walkout by two dozen surgeons from four hospitals in the state's northern Panhandle.

Insurance and Retirement Services Director Tom Susman said Tuesday that the doctors seemed reluctant to wait a week for legislative proposals being drafted to address the costs of malpractice insurance.

In the event of a walkout, the hospitals planned to divert patients to Ohio and Pennsylvania, or south to Morgantown, W.Va.

[FITZ]

Yes ---then it could be like flight insurance --if you don't choose to get buy it, then you can't claim anything. If doctors didn't have to pay for malpractice insurance, it could drastically lower rates for those of us not so likely to try and sue them.

[FITZ]

The other thing I think that would do is make the patient a little more conscious of what kind of doctor they go to ---I might not buy any insurance because I know the doctor I use is good. Or I could buy a cheaper policy because I have some confidence in that doctor.

[Young Rhino]

I spent seven years practicing law in the geographic area covered by this article. My cousin is an executive with the largest Pa. hospital system. This is a depressed area of the country where med mal jury bingo has replaced black lung claims for the way to "earn" a living.

Doctors make mistakes, and certain insurers are known for refusing to pay claims (e.g. AIG), but the hefty premiums are due to the damages exposure. Tort caps would solve this problem. Med mal shouldn't entitle a victim's family to sufficient money to fund the next three generations to live a standard of living that didn't exist prior to the malpractice.

[friendly]

Thanks.

AND... The money would exclusively come from private health insurance plans who are up in arms (as well they might be) since it may bankrupt. The "rescue" is really just another attack on private health care, paving the way for the 'Rats grand strategy as I discussed in my mega rant analysis.

[Young Rhino]

See post #23. Meritorious claims should be paid subject to tort caps.

[WaterDragon]

So, the doctors have shifted the malpractice insurance costs to the taxpayer, eh?

No one is talking about capping those claims? Why not? Because it isn't their money. It's the poor working slobs who'll be paying for it all.

[friendly]

Yours are literally the first honest words I have ever heard from a lawyer on this issue. And I have listened to many, many words.

[mountaineer]

I posted a thread several days ago about the surgeon walkout in the Northern Panhandle of West Virignia, Doctors Taking Leaves of Absence to Protest Rising Malpractice Premiums; A City Without Surgeons. We've had a lot of good discussion there about tort reform and related issues.

[Bella]

It's rather hard to have sympathy for the docs who can't get coverage because of their claim history. Wouldn't it be better to force them to disclose their claim history to patients and let the patients' decide whether or not to use these docs (quacks?)? The docs always have the economic choice not to carry insurance and they have the choice not to continue their practice. Likewise they have the choice to walk off the job.

There's many drs in PA who have many claims against them and continue to practice..the people SHOULD be able to check their history as other states are allowed and can be done online..Time to oust these bad and incompetent drs. Wonder how long it's going to take for the D's to jump on PA's new gov-elect Rendell for making the proposals that he did for the drs of Lackawanna county..What kind of deal was made..

[Bella]

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6554558&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=8

[johniegrad]

Yours is an excellent point. This is an attempt to cost shift expenses to the government and, while I'm in agreement with most of the sentiments expressed by Freepers here about tort reform, I'm also suprised by the lack of criticism about government (taxpayers) picking this up through a legislative action. The docs should also realize that the more involved they become in government reimbursement (it's already bad), the more they will be beholden to government intervention, regulation, and control.

[Mini-14]

See post #23. Meritorious claims should be paid subject to tort caps.

I'll agree to "tort caps" when doctors agree to "inflicted damage caps".

[WaterDragon]

I can't really blame the doctors for accepting any relief offered. They probably just want to be able to get on with their jobs.

It's the politicians who have NO difficulty shifting problems off onto the backs of taxpayers (which the doctors are taxpayers, too). This whole mess is the responsibility of the voters....doctors and otherwise.....we have to nail these big spending pols who shift tax monies over to their campaign contributing trial lawyers.

[WaterDragon]

There was a period of time when my family did not have medical insurance. We went to a clinic in town that charged on a sliding scale fee. Doctors who were convicted of malpractice (which didn't always mean they'd been negligent) were often required to donate x number of hours to this clinic. My family got excellent medical care there.

[Abundy]

The remedy is for judges to have the fortitude to sanction the offending lawyer, not to change the system.

A Friggin MEN!

My colleagues and I bitch about that all the time...if there were any meaningful application of Federal Rule 11 (and the State counterpart) including entering judgements against offending plaintiff attorneys for the defendant's fees you might see attorneys acting ethically and telling someone looking for a free lunch at the expense of an insurance company (read the rest of society) that they don't have a case.

Until sitting judges start pimp-slapping these attorneys with hefty fines and defense costs the situation will only get worse.

___

I have personal knowledge of an attorney that has pursued a civil action into the appellate arena in an effort to exhaust the resources of the defendants (two elderly people on fixed income). It is bogus claim regarding a right of way across the plaintiff's land where the title company has already admitted they screwed up and the right of way exists. The title company failed to note the right of way in a title search. The title company had already paid a settlement to the plaintiff who then filed suit against this old couple in an effort to prevent them from using the right of way - which is their driveway to their garage.

- Never mind that the plaintiff could clearly see the gravel driveway across the rear of his lot that is used by three different homes.

-Never mind that he specifically asked the realtor about it.

- Never mind that he didn't question prior to closing the deed and title search when the right of way didn't appear.

- Never mind that there was a dearth of case law exactly on point that led to a summary judgement at the Circuit Court level at the end of discovery. (You know how hard that is to get.)

The plaintiff sued this old couple anyway and then appealed the SJ dismissal. The kicker is that the attorney is the brother of the plaintiff...so while I believe he is suing this old couple for free figuring they don't have any money, I can't prove it.

He should be disbarred and they both should have to pay the $25K or so that the old couple's children have put out defending the bullshit lawsuit. Both the plaintiff and the attorney didn't realize that there was $ out their to defend the suit, and IMHO the suit was filed figuring that the old couple couldn't fight it, even though the plaintiff can't win as a matter of about 200 years worth of case law. The lawsuit has caused the elderly woman to be hospitalized twice for a health issues related to nerves - where this woman has always been in good health and lived in a stress-free environment until the suit was filed. Nothing like working all your life, saving your $ and purchasing a home figuring you can live out your "golden years" gardening and enjoying your grandchildren and great-grandchildren only to have some liberal transplant from Monkey County go and screw it up.

Makes one wish that for about 5 minutes in a dark alley they weren't an attorney and subject to the rules of professional conduct. A probation before judgement on an assault charge might actually be a worthwile exchange for employing a little old-fashioned, two-fisted street justice for these two. Oh well, I can at least look myself in the mirror and know that I'm a better person and attorney than this asshole for respecting both the criminal law and the RoPC. I have to trust that there is a special place in hell for both of them for what they are doing.

[meyer]

My recommendations for this problem and for the unregulated lawyer plague that damages all of our lives in so many ways? The world would be a better place with:

1) Loser Pays.

I agree wholeheartedly!

2) Massive tort reform on a unprecedented level

How about replacing "preponderance of evidence" with "reasonable doubt" for starters. And, stop preventing the defendant from fully arguing their case (as in the GM Malibu gas tank case in Florida where GM couldn't present all its defending evidence).

3) Widespread empowerment of paralegals for independent practice

There's lots of things a paralegal should be able to do such as wills, etc.

4) An end to punitive damages.

I most certainly agree - if something is worthy of punishment, it should be made illegal and tried in the criminal justice system.

5) An end to bogus class action suits.

I agree again. Plenty of suits have been filed on behalf of "plaintiffs" (unwitting plaintiffs in many cases) where the plaintiff gains nearly zero reward for the alleged wrongs.

6) Outlawing contingency fees.

I'm not sure if this should be done. I generally accept that 2 parties can contract for whatever payment-for-services method that they want.

7) Lawyers forbidden from running from office. They are agents of the judiciary.

There is an inherent conflict of interest that arises when a lawyer becomes a legislator.

8) Most important: a total disempowerment of the bar associations. Lawyer discipline by true consumer control. Like any other industry.

Yes, the Bar associations have been leaning left for a number of years - they have become political organizations rather than self-policing organizations for lawyers.

[1john2 3and4]

great post! im sure there are alot of people who would like to give you one of those "amen handshakes" for the sentiment. here's the deal: this is an insidious evil; the all too clear evidence of NO JUSTICE.

and "justice for all"? lost to the idea that you get just as much "justice" as you can afford. now what does that do to a "nation of laws"? NO RESPECT.....anarchy, thats what! then big bro comes in and "saves us". totalitarianism. thats where we're headed.

there is no difference between these people and bacteria. the host is ultimately consumed.

[1john2 3and4]

Until sitting judges start pimp-slapping these attorneys re: abundy's #35

question: does this not happen because *sigh* yes, judges are human too, and they dont want to have to deal with the pimp-slapped's face at lunch?

[friendly]

Yours is the best response I have gotten all year (or last!). I love your clarifying extrapolations.

[meyer]

Thank you. I'm using this thread, in part, to compose a letter to my Senator, a certain Mr. Frist! We need to work on the tort end of this, not let the government take over the medical industry. I'm thinking that the good doctor would agree.