Medical Liability Report: 61% of Doctors Have Been Sued
August 17, 2010
Ted Frank at PointofLaw.com refers us to a new study from the American Medical Association. Key finding: 61% of doctors over the age of 55 have been sued. As Frank writes:
“When the majority of doctors face medical malpractice lawsuits (90% when one narrows it to oft-sued specialties like surgery), it suggests that doctors are getting sued for practice, rather than malpractice.”
Medical Malpractice Reform - The Latest
June 14, 2010
Carter Wood over at Shopfloor has an update on the Administration’s “actions” on medical malpractice reform.
A word comes to mind in describing them: “Nothingburger.”
Jet-Setting Trial Lawyers
May 4, 2010
Earlier this year, the trial bar scored a big victory at the expense of doctors and patients when both the House and Senate balked at including medical liability reform in health care reform legislation.
Today, the Altanta Journal Constitution offers an up-close look at two of the trial lawyers helping to drive health care premiums higher.
The AJC profiles Tommy and Adam Malone, the father-son trial-lawyer dynamic duo. It was in ruling this spring on one of Adam Malone’s cases that the Georgia Supreme Court overturned the state’s pain and suffering awards cap.
In between flights on their private planes and visits to homes in the Bahamas and Palm Beach, the two convince Georgia juries to award their clients multi-million dollar verdicts.
Their take? 40%. Read more
Obama’s Medical Liability “Reforms” May Be Worse Than Nothing
April 1, 2010
Throughout the national health care debate, I wrote several items regarding President Obama’s bold pledge to work with Republicans on medical liability reform. Well, for those of you who wanted to believe in the audacity of such hopes, the Washington Times editorial page pounds the final nail in the coffin:
“President Obama made a big show about being open to sonme Republican reform ideas to rein in lawsuit abuse. Those pledges - which Mr. Obama made twice in public forums - were worthless. The final version of Obamacare, as signed into law, is a dream come true for big-money plaintiffs’ lawyers.”
The new health care law does contain a provision for enacting state medical liability reform demonstration projects, but these projects contain an opt-clause for plaintiffs to use whenever they want. As the Washington Times editorial makes clear, such projects may be worse than no reforms at all.
“…[N]ow plaintiffs effectively get even more power because they can pick and choose whicever system they think is most likely to get them the most cash. The demonstration projects — for ideas such as specialized “health courts,” where expert panels replace random juries — therefore become not a real alternative that levels the playing field, but instead just one more tool in the lawyers’ arsenal.”
Full editorial is here.
The Final Score on Medical Liability Reform and Health Care
March 24, 2010
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has a nice little summary of how medical liability reform fared in the giant, trillion-dollar health care bill President Obama signed yesterday. In the final analysis, $50 million will be made available to states that want to launch “demonstration projects” to develop alternative dispute resolution procedures and promote a reduction of health care errors. But of course there’s a catch.
“… if a state does go the alternative-dispute resolution route – and sets up, say an arbitration system presided over by a panel of medical experts – there’s a huge loophole. The law allows any plaintiff to ‘opt out’ of a program he or she doesn’t like, and pursue his or her claims in state court.”
That’s what “tort reform” looks like when the majority party in Congress is beholden to the trail bar for over $178 million in campaign contributions during the last election.
Obama/Democrats Bows to the Trial Bar…Again
February 23, 2010
President Obama has said he’s willing to work with Republicans on “a comprehensive package to deal with” medical liability reform. But according to news reports, the new package he unveiled yesterday contains not a peep about a reform that even the Congressional Budget Office estimates could cut health care costs by $54 billion.
Throughout the health care debate, the president has never been shy about trashing doctors he believes order up tonsillectomies so they can make more money. He’s also put health insurers in his sights, proposing to put Washington in charge of setting insurance rates. I guess crossing the powerful and generous trial bar ($781 billion in contributions to congressional Democrats since 1990, and yes, that’s billion with a “b”) is a bridge too far.
Illinois Supreme Court Turns Back Tort Reform
February 5, 2010
In a disappointing and tortured decision, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out limits on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases yesterday, overturning bipartisan legislation passed in 2005 that enjoyed broad public support. Ed Murnane, President of the Illinois Civil Justice League, blasted the court for “siding once again with the trial lawyers” over patients and doctors.
According to American Medical Association President James Rohack (who is quoted in today’s Chicago Tribune), when the Illinois Supreme Court overruled the state’s previous damage cap in 1997:
“Severe problems with patient access to care emerged as the unrestrained excesses of the state’s legal system forced Illinois physicians to limit services, retire early, or move to other states where liability premiums are more stable. Without a cap on noneconomic damages from 1997 to 2005, Chicago physicians saw their liability premiums increase an average of 10 to 12 percent each year. When the cap was reinstated in 2005, premiums for Chicago physicians stabilized and even began to shrink.”
This is the third time the Illinois high court has struck down medical liability limits, demonstrating that it “simply will not be bound by the duly enacted acts of the legislature when certain issues important to its lawyer constituency are at stake,” writes Walter Olson in a post at PointofLaw.com that picks apart the court’s legal analysis.
The Illinois court’s “lawless” decision (Olson) demonstrates beyond any doubt that the best tort reform is getting the right judges on the bench.
Congressional Research Arm Backs Up Tort Reform Savings
January 11, 2010
The Congressional Budget Office sparked a mini firestorm in Washington when it estimated that tort reform would save the federal government (and the taxpayers who fund it) $54 billion in lower health care costs. Trial Lawyers Inc. was aghast and the lawsuit industry’s lackeys on Capitol Hill shot off a letter to CBO questioning the findings. According to a piece in the Washington Examiner, CBO is not backing down. In a letter to Congressman Bruce Braley (a former trial lawyer), CBO concluded:
“After a careful evaluation of the research relevant to tort reform, along with discussions with members of the agency’s Panel of Health Advisors who have particular expertise in this topic, CBO concluded that the weight of empirical evidence now demonstrates a link between tort reform and the use of health care services.”
Translation: Tort reform cuts down on the practice of defensive medicine – including expensive tests doctors order just to avoid being sued. Unfortunately, CBO’s analysis seems to be having little impact on congressional majorites. As I’ve posted earlier, the House health care bill actually punishes states that have dealt effectively with the medical liability crisis.
New Poll: Public Supports Tort Reform by 2:1 Margin
December 3, 2009
57% of voters want to cap the amount of money that can be awarded in a medical liability suit, according to a new Rasmussen poll (hat tip, Robert Moon):
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide favor limiting the amount of money a jury can award a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 29% disagree and 14% are not sure.
Forty-seven percent (47%) believe that restricting jury awards for medical malpractice lawsuits will significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, and 25% are not sure.
Real Health Care Reform Must Include Tort Reform
December 1, 2009
Two excellent articles in the past few days continue to make the case that effective health care reform must include meaningful medical liability reform. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that as much as $54 billion could be saved over the next decade if Congress enacted legal reforms.
In an interview with LegalNewsLine, columnist Charles Krauthammer argues that without liability reforms the billions that could be saved are instead flushed away:
“Part is simply hemorrhaged into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of extravagantly rich malpractice lawyers such as John Edwards. The rest is wasted within the medical system in the millions of unnecessary tests, procedures and referrals undertaken solely to fend off lawsuits.”
As Krauthammer points out, instead of enacting serious reforms, the health care bill passed by the House “actually penalizes states that dare ‘limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.’”
An article by Jim Copeland of the Manhattan Institute uncovers the other trial lawyer goodies hidden in the House bill. It ain’t pretty. And the Senate bill? MIA when it comes to tackling runaway medical liability premiums - there are no legal reforms to be found, just a meaningless ”sense of the Senate” provision that medical liability is an issue.
As Copeland writes,
“The trial bar could hardly have designed better bills for protecting its interests.”