Most people seem to have a misplaced idea of what drives insurance costs. I’m not familiar enough with malpractice insurance to know for certain, but I seriously doubt caps on jury awards will make much of a dent in malpractice premiums. Malpractice allegations are no doubt costly to defend and probably result in a lot of settlements just to avoid going to trial.
What we should be doing is raising the bar on the standard to even sue for malpractice in the first place. Make each alleged incident of malpractice go through a “grand jury” of doctors, the only people who are truly qualified to determine whether there is enough evidence of professional negligence to proceed with the case. This way, the FREQUENCY of malpractice suits actually goes down – resulting in real cost savings, and the med mal premiums should go down. Also, doctors would be less inclined to practice defensive medicine resulting in true medical expense savings and lower health insurance premiums. Also, there would be no silly/arbitrary “caps” on damages, and justice would still be served for those who have experienced true malpractice. It’s a win-win-win.
Ultimately I am very disappointed with the current health bills. They focus on making health insurance coverage more available, which I support, but miss the opportunity to realize true cost-savings rather than just cost-shifting. It’s too bad they couldn’t let go of the public option; I would probably support it otherwise, even though it doesn’t really solve the true problem of cost.
A cap on malpractice damages should also reduce the frequency of malpractice lawsuits. It’s not really possible to measure the degree to which they would decrease ahead of time, though.
Some number of lawsuits are filed due to the “legal lottery” mentality, where the plaintiff’s mindset is that a non-optimal outcome should translate into millions of dollars for the plaintiff. While few of these lawsuits actually are settled for the exorbitant amounts sought, the cap might make it so that they are not filed in the first place.
True, the decreased incentives should reduce the number of lawsuits filed. In my personal opinion, this is a heavy handed way to try to reduce costs which may cause as many problems as it solves, and this is why it is so difficult to sell. You point out the fact that it’s not really possible to quantify the effects of caps and I think most actuaries would agree. I don’t know what assumptions the CBO analysts are using to come up with the CBO number but I’d be very interested in an AAA review of the methodology (something a little more detailed than their review of the House bill, please).
If politicians were serious about reforming and lowering the cost of healthcare they would follow the example of Workers’ Compensation reform in the state of FL. Not only did reform limit the amount an injured worker could be awarded, they limited the amount a lawyer could charge in attorney’s fees to a “reasonable” amount. Of course the greater than thou lawyers wouldn’t mind that since they are standing up for patient’s rights.
And I’m not guessing that this will make a difference, I KNOW IT WILL. Since this was enacted in 2003 the cost of WC has decreased more than 60%. How many small business owners would like to see that with Healthcare. And it certainly wouldn’t require a 2,074 page bill and $1 Trillion in debt. Assuming that the government isn’t underestimating this number by 1000% as they traditionally do.
“I’m not a health insurance actuary, so this is not a response to the call for actuaries.”
The best idea I’ve heard on this is the creation of expert panels to review complaints, rather than having sympathetic juries decide verdicts on med mal cases.
This poll is yet another area where the majority of Americans are opposed to the current plans to overhaul the health insurance system. When will congress and the president get the message?
I agree with Michael. If health insurance/care is truly a right and not a privilege as the current Congress seems to believe, how appropriate is it to enrich an attorney for trying to enforce the care to which we are “entitled” in the face of it being ruined by a medical error? At a time when we would be most vulnerable and our health is gone or comprised, it should not be the job of the “system” to enrich another. Bankruptcy attorney fees are limited by the court. Why not a court-imposed limitation on malpractice legal fees?
You will never see Malpractice (tort) reform with Obama and Liberal running Congress. They are owned by the Trial Lawyers. The are not really concerned with health care, just power.
“Make each alleged incident of malpractice go through a “grand jury” of doctors, the only people who are truly qualified to determine whether there is enough evidence of professional negligence to proceed with the case.”
Doctors are notorious for protecting their own. Whether that is due to professional courtesy, a very high self opinion of themselves and their practice or a fear that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, I can’t say. Reform is needed but I don’t think this is one of the steps.
There actually are procedures in place currently for panels of doctors to hear malapractice cases and give a “verdict” of the case’s validity. This does prevent alot of cases from going to trial. However, even if the panel of doctors determines that the case is without merit, a lawyer can still go to trial with the case if they so choose. The doctors in the panel can be called as witnesses and their verdict can be brought into evidence, but the ultimate decision is still up to a jury. This happened to my dad about a year ago. The case was without merit (as a panel of doctors unanimously decided), and the plaintiff ultimately still lost, but my dad had to go through the expense (and professional embarassment) of the trial anyway.
Franklin, just change the title in your post from doctor to lawyer and you will get the same thing. Only lawyers control every level of government including the courts. It’s not healthy and it’s not really going to change.
Florida enacted tort reform in the area of Workers Compensation in 2004. This is what happened.
Rate Decrease Approved Effective 1/1/10
On October 15, 2009, Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty issued an order approving the proposed rate decrease submitted by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) for workers’ compensation insurance rates.
The NCCI filing submitted August 20, 2009 includes an overall average statewide rate decrease of 6.8 percent effective January 1, 2010.
The rate decrease is the seventh consecutive decline in workers’ compensation rates since the Legislature passed sweeping reforms in 2003. The cumulative overall statewide average has decreased by 63.2 percent.
THAT IS 63% reduction in rates with tort reform for medical and compensation claims.
I agree that professions are fairly protective of their own, and one member does not challenge another members work lightly. But I’m not asking the “grand jury” to opine on the defendants’ work, only to review the case to see if an argument can be made for medical malpractice.
I’m assuming that medical malpractice follows the legal traditions of professional liability/negligency. To be held professionally negligent, a professional has to be shown not to have performed services with a similar level of care as that performed by his/her peers in the profession. A grand jury of doctors or medical experts should quickly be able to determine whether the defendant was operating close to the margin. If so, the case can go forward and each side can hire their own medical experts and proceed as before. The purpose of the medical grand jury is simply to weed out the plaintiffs who are bluffing their way to a settlement or attorneys who are playing the legal slot machine.
Ever read the definition of “malpractice”? The standard of proof is EXTREMELY difficult to meet and must include wanton/wilful neglect. Most medical problems don’t qualify. Just because there’s a bad outcome doesn’t translate to malpractice. There should also be a “cap” on contingent fees for attorney’s as well as non-economic damages. But hey, politicians are lawyers too and it’s unlikely they’ll interrupt the stampede to the money trough by their brethern.
Most people seem to have a misplaced idea of what drives insurance costs. I’m not familiar enough with malpractice insurance to know for certain, but I seriously doubt caps on jury awards will make much of a dent in malpractice premiums. Malpractice allegations are no doubt costly to defend and probably result in a lot of settlements just to avoid going to trial.
What we should be doing is raising the bar on the standard to even sue for malpractice in the first place. Make each alleged incident of malpractice go through a “grand jury” of doctors, the only people who are truly qualified to determine whether there is enough evidence of professional negligence to proceed with the case. This way, the FREQUENCY of malpractice suits actually goes down – resulting in real cost savings, and the med mal premiums should go down. Also, doctors would be less inclined to practice defensive medicine resulting in true medical expense savings and lower health insurance premiums. Also, there would be no silly/arbitrary “caps” on damages, and justice would still be served for those who have experienced true malpractice. It’s a win-win-win.
Ultimately I am very disappointed with the current health bills. They focus on making health insurance coverage more available, which I support, but miss the opportunity to realize true cost-savings rather than just cost-shifting. It’s too bad they couldn’t let go of the public option; I would probably support it otherwise, even though it doesn’t really solve the true problem of cost.
A cap on malpractice damages should also reduce the frequency of malpractice lawsuits. It’s not really possible to measure the degree to which they would decrease ahead of time, though.
Some number of lawsuits are filed due to the “legal lottery” mentality, where the plaintiff’s mindset is that a non-optimal outcome should translate into millions of dollars for the plaintiff. While few of these lawsuits actually are settled for the exorbitant amounts sought, the cap might make it so that they are not filed in the first place.
True, the decreased incentives should reduce the number of lawsuits filed. In my personal opinion, this is a heavy handed way to try to reduce costs which may cause as many problems as it solves, and this is why it is so difficult to sell. You point out the fact that it’s not really possible to quantify the effects of caps and I think most actuaries would agree. I don’t know what assumptions the CBO analysts are using to come up with the CBO number but I’d be very interested in an AAA review of the methodology (something a little more detailed than their review of the House bill, please).
If politicians were serious about reforming and lowering the cost of healthcare they would follow the example of Workers’ Compensation reform in the state of FL. Not only did reform limit the amount an injured worker could be awarded, they limited the amount a lawyer could charge in attorney’s fees to a “reasonable” amount. Of course the greater than thou lawyers wouldn’t mind that since they are standing up for patient’s rights.
And I’m not guessing that this will make a difference, I KNOW IT WILL. Since this was enacted in 2003 the cost of WC has decreased more than 60%. How many small business owners would like to see that with Healthcare. And it certainly wouldn’t require a 2,074 page bill and $1 Trillion in debt. Assuming that the government isn’t underestimating this number by 1000% as they traditionally do.
“I’m not a health insurance actuary, so this is not a response to the call for actuaries.”
The best idea I’ve heard on this is the creation of expert panels to review complaints, rather than having sympathetic juries decide verdicts on med mal cases.
This poll is yet another area where the majority of Americans are opposed to the current plans to overhaul the health insurance system. When will congress and the president get the message?
I agree with Michael. If health insurance/care is truly a right and not a privilege as the current Congress seems to believe, how appropriate is it to enrich an attorney for trying to enforce the care to which we are “entitled” in the face of it being ruined by a medical error? At a time when we would be most vulnerable and our health is gone or comprised, it should not be the job of the “system” to enrich another. Bankruptcy attorney fees are limited by the court. Why not a court-imposed limitation on malpractice legal fees?
You will never see Malpractice (tort) reform with Obama and Liberal running Congress. They are owned by the Trial Lawyers. The are not really concerned with health care, just power.
“Make each alleged incident of malpractice go through a “grand jury” of doctors, the only people who are truly qualified to determine whether there is enough evidence of professional negligence to proceed with the case.”
Doctors are notorious for protecting their own. Whether that is due to professional courtesy, a very high self opinion of themselves and their practice or a fear that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, I can’t say. Reform is needed but I don’t think this is one of the steps.
There actually are procedures in place currently for panels of doctors to hear malapractice cases and give a “verdict” of the case’s validity. This does prevent alot of cases from going to trial. However, even if the panel of doctors determines that the case is without merit, a lawyer can still go to trial with the case if they so choose. The doctors in the panel can be called as witnesses and their verdict can be brought into evidence, but the ultimate decision is still up to a jury. This happened to my dad about a year ago. The case was without merit (as a panel of doctors unanimously decided), and the plaintiff ultimately still lost, but my dad had to go through the expense (and professional embarassment) of the trial anyway.
Franklin, just change the title in your post from doctor to lawyer and you will get the same thing. Only lawyers control every level of government including the courts. It’s not healthy and it’s not really going to change.
Florida enacted tort reform in the area of Workers Compensation in 2004. This is what happened.
Rate Decrease Approved Effective 1/1/10
On October 15, 2009, Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty issued an order approving the proposed rate decrease submitted by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) for workers’ compensation insurance rates.
The NCCI filing submitted August 20, 2009 includes an overall average statewide rate decrease of 6.8 percent effective January 1, 2010.
The rate decrease is the seventh consecutive decline in workers’ compensation rates since the Legislature passed sweeping reforms in 2003. The cumulative overall statewide average has decreased by 63.2 percent.
THAT IS 63% reduction in rates with tort reform for medical and compensation claims.
IT WORKS!
I agree that professions are fairly protective of their own, and one member does not challenge another members work lightly. But I’m not asking the “grand jury” to opine on the defendants’ work, only to review the case to see if an argument can be made for medical malpractice.
I’m assuming that medical malpractice follows the legal traditions of professional liability/negligency. To be held professionally negligent, a professional has to be shown not to have performed services with a similar level of care as that performed by his/her peers in the profession. A grand jury of doctors or medical experts should quickly be able to determine whether the defendant was operating close to the margin. If so, the case can go forward and each side can hire their own medical experts and proceed as before. The purpose of the medical grand jury is simply to weed out the plaintiffs who are bluffing their way to a settlement or attorneys who are playing the legal slot machine.
Cosmo Mannella agrees with Bill.
Ever read the definition of “malpractice”? The standard of proof is EXTREMELY difficult to meet and must include wanton/wilful neglect. Most medical problems don’t qualify. Just because there’s a bad outcome doesn’t translate to malpractice. There should also be a “cap” on contingent fees for attorney’s as well as non-economic damages. But hey, politicians are lawyers too and it’s unlikely they’ll interrupt the stampede to the money trough by their brethern.