Recent legislation which passed the Missouri House will do little to address the twin issues of availability and affordability of insrance for doctors in Missouri. Overlooked in the rush (the session started in early January ’04) are opportunities which the industry and insureds have for increased availability and affordability which exist under options which are provided under federal law.
In the 80’s the twin issues of availability and affordability were addressed by federal legislation which allowed risk retention groups to be formed as a means of competition in what was perceived as a market dominated by a small number of large players. The Journal recently reported about one such group which was set up to sell in Florida. Missouri or other doctors have the same option. The same legislation repealed state anti-group laws which prevented individuals from joining in a small groups of low-risk insureds to bargain for better rates. If doctors joined groups where they made up a smaller risk for claims (some 4-5% of doctors create 45-55% of claims)and excluded potential insureds which had too high of a risk factor, their rates could go down. The group bargaining process would also have the benefit of functional experience rating to spread risk to those which incur the greatest cost. Good doctors would no longer subsidize the bad practice of medicine and benefit thereby. Less good doctors would find themselves appropriately priced or out of the market with a resulting benefit to consumers.
Doctors, insurance companies and the American Medical Association constantly bemoan the fact that malpractice insurance rates are too high. Some members of these groups place the blame for the high rates upon those whom they have harmed through acts of medical malpractice and choose to litigate. Advocates for the medical profession pursue legislation to restrict or remove the right of fair and just compensation from the injured. Some health care professionals attempt to portray themselves as the victims. These â€Ŕprofessionals†give the appearance of wanting to distance themselves from responsibility for their actions and the actions of their peers. Yet these same â€Ŕprofessionals†do not want their right to litigate either limited or removed when they feel they have been harmed.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Recent legislation which passed the Missouri House will do little to address the twin issues of availability and affordability of insrance for doctors in Missouri. Overlooked in the rush (the session started in early January ’04) are opportunities which the industry and insureds have for increased availability and affordability which exist under options which are provided under federal law.
In the 80’s the twin issues of availability and affordability were addressed by federal legislation which allowed risk retention groups to be formed as a means of competition in what was perceived as a market dominated by a small number of large players. The Journal recently reported about one such group which was set up to sell in Florida. Missouri or other doctors have the same option. The same legislation repealed state anti-group laws which prevented individuals from joining in a small groups of low-risk insureds to bargain for better rates. If doctors joined groups where they made up a smaller risk for claims (some 4-5% of doctors create 45-55% of claims)and excluded potential insureds which had too high of a risk factor, their rates could go down. The group bargaining process would also have the benefit of functional experience rating to spread risk to those which incur the greatest cost. Good doctors would no longer subsidize the bad practice of medicine and benefit thereby. Less good doctors would find themselves appropriately priced or out of the market with a resulting benefit to consumers.
Doctors, insurance companies and the American Medical Association constantly bemoan the fact that malpractice insurance rates are too high. Some members of these groups place the blame for the high rates upon those whom they have harmed through acts of medical malpractice and choose to litigate. Advocates for the medical profession pursue legislation to restrict or remove the right of fair and just compensation from the injured. Some health care professionals attempt to portray themselves as the victims. These â€Ŕprofessionals†give the appearance of wanting to distance themselves from responsibility for their actions and the actions of their peers. Yet these same â€Ŕprofessionals†do not want their right to litigate either limited or removed when they feel they have been harmed.