Medical Malpractice Verdicts and "Tort reform"
You hear it on the news fairly frequently now.
"Frivolous lawsuits are driving doctors to close their practice" Hmmm. Insurance companies accept premiums from doctors and then invest those premiums while they are waiting to pay any claims that might be brought against the insurance companies.
So...if the insurance companies want to make more money then they can raise premiums or cut down on the lawsuits. Why not do both.
The New York Times has an article that is worth reading. (The NY Times requires free registration to reach its articles) In my opinion the insurance companies lost a lot of money in investing in the last several years so now they have an opportunity to blame it on lawyers and lawsuits and get "reform". The problem is that the reform hurts people with valid law suits.
1. If you want to stop frivolous lawsuits, then explain to me how a cap on damages does this. If a lawsuit is truly frivolous, then a good lawyer won't pursue it simply because medical malpractice lawsuits, when prepared properly, take an enormous amount of time, effort and money. They won't pursue it because it will not result in a settlement or verdict that covers costs and returns anything to the client or the lawyer. Here's the bottom line on caps. If you say that a person can only receive $250,000 for pain and suffering then you are hurting the people who actually were injured by malpractice. It makes no sense.
2. Call the problem what is is. The insurance companies should be telling people that they need to make a profit and that they lost a lot on investments in recent years.
I'll try to stay off my soapbox here, but Medical Malpractice reform is important and everyone needs to understand that they way it is being pursued now will result in limits on people who have real cases and real injuries.
Here is Todd Smith's response to the article I referred to above. Attorney Smith is President of the American Trial lawyers Association (ATLA). I am a member of this association as well.
To the Editor:The Times's article "Behind Those Medical Malpractice
Rates" is correct to point out that it has been the
declining investment earnings of insurance companies
that have caused doctors' malpractice premiums to
increase - not malpractice verdicts, which are
actually decreasing.That's why Dennis Kelly, a spokesman for the American
Insurance Association, had to admit, "We have not
promised price reductions with tort reform." (Chicago
Tribune, 1/3/05)It is increasingly inexplicable why the American
Medical Association (AMA) continues to swallow hook,
line and sinker the agenda of an industry that is
price-gouging its members.Doctors and lawyers should agree that the insurance
industry has too much control over the entire health
care system, and find common ground over the need for
insurance reform. Removing the industry's anti-trust
exemption and requiring justification for rate
increases are two simple measures that can reduce
doctors' malpractice premiums, without stripping away
patients' rights.Doctors and lawyers can also support reducing medical
malpractice lawsuits by making health care safer.
Increased funding for patient management technology
and addressing nursing shortages can help prevent the
medical errors that kill 100,000 Americans annually.Unfortunately, since 2001, the AMA has rebuffed
repeated invitations to meet with the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America to promote patient safety
reform and insurance reform.We will always oppose efforts to limit compensation
for innocent victims of medical negligence, no matter
how serious the injury or how bad the care, but our
hand remains extended to anyone in the medical
community willing to work together to improve patient
safety and take back our health care system from the
HMOs and insurance industry.
