“This litigious climate hurts patients’ access to physician care at a time when the nation is working to reduce unnecessary health care costs.”
But that doesn’t matter, as the entire leftist Democrat Party establishment and membership is wholly owned by the trail lawyers association, wich means the Democrat Party DOES NOT CARE. The leftist Democrat Party has consciously chosen money/donations, over caring for theie constituents.
Even the digsuting, spoiled, rich-boy doctor, Howard Dean has stated flatly “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it (Democrat Party members) did not want to take on the trial lawyers”. These people are sickening.
When even Howard Dean admits the leftist Democrats sold out every single American, all to gain money and power, then this cannot be doubted.
One has to truly be a sick individual to be a member of the Democrat Party. They are absolutely disgusting.
So, what it looks like to me is, the cost of defense (attorneys) is what is driving up the cost of mal practice insurance, and therefore driving up the cost of healthcare. Get rid of the attorneys and the cost of healthcare will decrease! Wow!
It does not signal a need for “reform”! It signals a need for doctors to stop being pompas asses and to explain procedures better, explain results better and helping patients make more informed decisions, then maybe the Patient wont want the surgery and the doctors salary goes down!
We have these statistics before obamacare, how much worse will it be with obamacare? Patients will be rushed through appointments like cattle after waiting excessively for a visit. The negative impact this will have on patient care will cause the lawsuites and costs to skyrocket!
I believe that these statistics could improve if more doctors accepted and adopted the role of medical advisor to their patients, and avoided being their medical decision-maker. I’ve never had an attorney become upset if I didn’t accept his/her recommendation. I can’t say the same for doctors.
Here we go again, Obama bashing and Democrat bashing. When the GOP controlled both houses I sure saw you all rushing to impose tort reform, didn’t I. Again, this is a STATE issue not federal. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts more of those lawyers vote GOP in most states than Dem.
We are long overdue for tort reform in this segment.
This is one Democrat/liberal that would APPLAUD tort reform. If 90% of these suits are in favor of the MD’s, what does it say about the lawyers’ recommendations to their clients? The “let’s throw it against the wall and see if it sticks” gambit needs to have some consequence for the thrower.
Stop the bashing…you are not correct; the lawyers (who control our govt at all levels…after all, who else has the time and income to allow for an office run) are taking care of their own.
FYI, over 90% of political donations from teh Trial Lawyers Assn of America go into Democrat Party coffers. So, follow the money.
That being said, a pox on both their houses, exactly for the point you made regarding addressing the issue when Republicans had control. The only caveat I would throw in is, after 9/11 Bush & Congressional Republicans had to work with Democrats to address defense and war issues (regardless of what one thinks of the wars themselves – remember all but 1 senator voted for use of force against Iraq), which required concessions.
But the bottom line is you are correct. Both parties must be brought to heel on this issue. The lawyers are raping nearly every business in this land, regardless of SIC code, but particularly as regards healthcare.
It’s not a matter of the doctors better explaining things when it comes to ob docs. The lawsuits are because the parents have a baby with extra needs and they need someone to blame. I have seen too many cases that the doctors, nurses, etc did nothing wrong but the child was still born with mental or physical disabilities. Rather than accepting the child as is, the parents say that someone has to be to blame.
I have just read the original posts, and the comments to date. I am disappointed by the pointing fingers back and forth as to what should really be one of the most non-partisan issues.. quality medical care, the avoidance of medical malpractice, and the options available to people if they believe medical malpractice has taken place. I have had a husband die of cancer, and through that seen medical care at its’ best. I have also had my six year old son die, and seen medical care at its’ worst. I am a Republican, and fiscal conservative, but I do not support Med Mal Tort Reform as it is traditionally proposed because it does not address realities and plays on Med Mal myths as far as the degree of frivolous lawsuits, the value of non-economic caps, the degree of defensive medicine etc. The real statistics show very different results than the AMA, Trial Lawyers, Politicians etc. would spin for “their benefit”. I would advise people to go to source studies, not spin. One would see that it should be a non-partisan solution, involving doctors, patients, hospitals and… where/when needed attorneys (on both sides). One of the best books, I have read, is written by a Law Professor, whose father and father in law are both doctors, and he takes a completely neutral stance, and simply looks at the data. No spin, no political agenda. The book is the Medical Malpractice Myth, written by Tom Baker. As to the subject article, keep this in mind that the AMA, as other groups, have a spin and slant in their best interest, as to the data. Be informed before jumping to conclusions on either side.
I am a lawyer and represent patients in medical malpractice cases. Some of the people who have written comments do not understand how difficult it is for an injured patient to find a lawyer to take on the doctor and the insurance company and how difficult it is to win a case, even with strong facts on the patient’s side.
I practice in Wisconsin. Our court administrator keeps track of the number of malpractice cases that are filed each year. Last year there were 136 medical malpractice cases filed in a state with 5.6 million people and 17,000 practicing doctors. That comes to one lawsuit for every 125 practicing doctors, not what I would consider a “litigious climate” as reported in the article.
The article also says that the AMA claims that the number of claims is not an indication of the frequency of medical error as the doctors win 90% of the cases that go to trial. Actually, the number of people injured or killed by medical negligence is well documented in the medical journal articles. In 1999 the Institute of Medicine published a book “To Err is Human” that concluded, through surveys of hospital charts, that up to 98,000 people die in American hospitals each year as a result of medical negligence. That number did not include people who died outside the hospital nor the people who are injured by not killed by medical negligence. Suffice it to say, there are hundreds of thousands of people who die or are injured each year because of medical negligence. All payments by medical malpractice insurance companies must be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. Last year there were only 10,722 payments made to patients on account of doctor negligence in the entire country. Compare that number to the actual number of people who die or are injured and it is apparent that the problem is not too many cases being filed. It is that there is too much malpractice being committed. The high rate of success of defending doctors in malpractice trials is not that the cases lack merit. It is because American jurors are very reluctant to find that a doctor was negligent. Read “Doctors & Juries” by Philip G. Peters, Jr., in the Michigan Law Review. It can be downloaded online. It reviews seven articles in the medical literature that compare jury verdicts with the malpractice insurance companies’ analysis of the cases. The finding is that the plaintiffs lost half of the cases the insurance companies determined were indefensible. The conclusion of the author is that juries favor doctors, not injured people. No lawyer would take a case without merit because the case would require hundreds of hours of time and tens of thousands of dollars to take to trial, with an almost certain chance of losing the case. Hence, the small number of cases that are filed and the smaller number of cases that are won.
Sorry if I don’t believe your claim of “That comes to one lawsuit for every 125 practicing doctors” when this article begs to differ with some hard data, not “Well this person says this so its true”
Beleive it or not, I am not against lawyers and I do my best not to bad mouth them because there might be a moment in time where I might need one. I blame the people that get the idea in their head they are going to sue because the doctor looked at them cross eyed.
The numbers in my comment are precisely correct. The state administrator of courts accurately keeps track of all case filings. In 2008 there were 64 payments made to people in Wisconsin as a result of doctor negligence per the National Practitioner Data Bank. That comes to 3.7 payments for each 1,000 practicing doctors in Wisconsin. These are hard facts maintained by governmental agencies that are available on the web. My perception has been that the medical malpractice situation is exaggerated by the AMA and poorly understood by the average person who is not familiar with the facts. Lawyers who do this work know all too well how difficult these cases are to succcessfully pursue.
“This litigious climate hurts patients’ access to physician care at a time when the nation is working to reduce unnecessary health care costs.”
But that doesn’t matter, as the entire leftist Democrat Party establishment and membership is wholly owned by the trail lawyers association, wich means the Democrat Party DOES NOT CARE. The leftist Democrat Party has consciously chosen money/donations, over caring for theie constituents.
Even the digsuting, spoiled, rich-boy doctor, Howard Dean has stated flatly “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it (Democrat Party members) did not want to take on the trial lawyers”. These people are sickening.
When even Howard Dean admits the leftist Democrats sold out every single American, all to gain money and power, then this cannot be doubted.
One has to truly be a sick individual to be a member of the Democrat Party. They are absolutely disgusting.
So, what it looks like to me is, the cost of defense (attorneys) is what is driving up the cost of mal practice insurance, and therefore driving up the cost of healthcare. Get rid of the attorneys and the cost of healthcare will decrease! Wow!
It does not signal a need for “reform”! It signals a need for doctors to stop being pompas asses and to explain procedures better, explain results better and helping patients make more informed decisions, then maybe the Patient wont want the surgery and the doctors salary goes down!
We have these statistics before obamacare, how much worse will it be with obamacare? Patients will be rushed through appointments like cattle after waiting excessively for a visit. The negative impact this will have on patient care will cause the lawsuites and costs to skyrocket!
I believe that these statistics could improve if more doctors accepted and adopted the role of medical advisor to their patients, and avoided being their medical decision-maker. I’ve never had an attorney become upset if I didn’t accept his/her recommendation. I can’t say the same for doctors.
Here we go again, Obama bashing and Democrat bashing. When the GOP controlled both houses I sure saw you all rushing to impose tort reform, didn’t I. Again, this is a STATE issue not federal. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts more of those lawyers vote GOP in most states than Dem.
We are long overdue for tort reform in this segment.
This is one Democrat/liberal that would APPLAUD tort reform. If 90% of these suits are in favor of the MD’s, what does it say about the lawyers’ recommendations to their clients? The “let’s throw it against the wall and see if it sticks” gambit needs to have some consequence for the thrower.
Stop the bashing…you are not correct; the lawyers (who control our govt at all levels…after all, who else has the time and income to allow for an office run) are taking care of their own.
Hello again! ;-)
FYI, over 90% of political donations from teh Trial Lawyers Assn of America go into Democrat Party coffers. So, follow the money.
That being said, a pox on both their houses, exactly for the point you made regarding addressing the issue when Republicans had control. The only caveat I would throw in is, after 9/11 Bush & Congressional Republicans had to work with Democrats to address defense and war issues (regardless of what one thinks of the wars themselves – remember all but 1 senator voted for use of force against Iraq), which required concessions.
But the bottom line is you are correct. Both parties must be brought to heel on this issue. The lawyers are raping nearly every business in this land, regardless of SIC code, but particularly as regards healthcare.
It’s not a matter of the doctors better explaining things when it comes to ob docs. The lawsuits are because the parents have a baby with extra needs and they need someone to blame. I have seen too many cases that the doctors, nurses, etc did nothing wrong but the child was still born with mental or physical disabilities. Rather than accepting the child as is, the parents say that someone has to be to blame.
I have just read the original posts, and the comments to date. I am disappointed by the pointing fingers back and forth as to what should really be one of the most non-partisan issues.. quality medical care, the avoidance of medical malpractice, and the options available to people if they believe medical malpractice has taken place. I have had a husband die of cancer, and through that seen medical care at its’ best. I have also had my six year old son die, and seen medical care at its’ worst. I am a Republican, and fiscal conservative, but I do not support Med Mal Tort Reform as it is traditionally proposed because it does not address realities and plays on Med Mal myths as far as the degree of frivolous lawsuits, the value of non-economic caps, the degree of defensive medicine etc. The real statistics show very different results than the AMA, Trial Lawyers, Politicians etc. would spin for “their benefit”. I would advise people to go to source studies, not spin. One would see that it should be a non-partisan solution, involving doctors, patients, hospitals and… where/when needed attorneys (on both sides). One of the best books, I have read, is written by a Law Professor, whose father and father in law are both doctors, and he takes a completely neutral stance, and simply looks at the data. No spin, no political agenda. The book is the Medical Malpractice Myth, written by Tom Baker. As to the subject article, keep this in mind that the AMA, as other groups, have a spin and slant in their best interest, as to the data. Be informed before jumping to conclusions on either side.
I am a lawyer and represent patients in medical malpractice cases. Some of the people who have written comments do not understand how difficult it is for an injured patient to find a lawyer to take on the doctor and the insurance company and how difficult it is to win a case, even with strong facts on the patient’s side.
I practice in Wisconsin. Our court administrator keeps track of the number of malpractice cases that are filed each year. Last year there were 136 medical malpractice cases filed in a state with 5.6 million people and 17,000 practicing doctors. That comes to one lawsuit for every 125 practicing doctors, not what I would consider a “litigious climate” as reported in the article.
The article also says that the AMA claims that the number of claims is not an indication of the frequency of medical error as the doctors win 90% of the cases that go to trial. Actually, the number of people injured or killed by medical negligence is well documented in the medical journal articles. In 1999 the Institute of Medicine published a book “To Err is Human” that concluded, through surveys of hospital charts, that up to 98,000 people die in American hospitals each year as a result of medical negligence. That number did not include people who died outside the hospital nor the people who are injured by not killed by medical negligence. Suffice it to say, there are hundreds of thousands of people who die or are injured each year because of medical negligence. All payments by medical malpractice insurance companies must be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. Last year there were only 10,722 payments made to patients on account of doctor negligence in the entire country. Compare that number to the actual number of people who die or are injured and it is apparent that the problem is not too many cases being filed. It is that there is too much malpractice being committed. The high rate of success of defending doctors in malpractice trials is not that the cases lack merit. It is because American jurors are very reluctant to find that a doctor was negligent. Read “Doctors & Juries” by Philip G. Peters, Jr., in the Michigan Law Review. It can be downloaded online. It reviews seven articles in the medical literature that compare jury verdicts with the malpractice insurance companies’ analysis of the cases. The finding is that the plaintiffs lost half of the cases the insurance companies determined were indefensible. The conclusion of the author is that juries favor doctors, not injured people. No lawyer would take a case without merit because the case would require hundreds of hours of time and tens of thousands of dollars to take to trial, with an almost certain chance of losing the case. Hence, the small number of cases that are filed and the smaller number of cases that are won.
Sorry if I don’t believe your claim of “That comes to one lawsuit for every 125 practicing doctors” when this article begs to differ with some hard data, not “Well this person says this so its true”
Beleive it or not, I am not against lawyers and I do my best not to bad mouth them because there might be a moment in time where I might need one. I blame the people that get the idea in their head they are going to sue because the doctor looked at them cross eyed.
The numbers in my comment are precisely correct. The state administrator of courts accurately keeps track of all case filings. In 2008 there were 64 payments made to people in Wisconsin as a result of doctor negligence per the National Practitioner Data Bank. That comes to 3.7 payments for each 1,000 practicing doctors in Wisconsin. These are hard facts maintained by governmental agencies that are available on the web. My perception has been that the medical malpractice situation is exaggerated by the AMA and poorly understood by the average person who is not familiar with the facts. Lawyers who do this work know all too well how difficult these cases are to succcessfully pursue.
Medicine cab be purchased after 7 days of advice as per Medical Attendent rules
Medicine cab be purchased after 7 days of advice as per Medical Attendent rules