Posted on 01/30/2003 4:59:54 PM PST by Libloather
Worried New Jerseyans Expect Doctors Not To Be In
By ROBERT HANLEY and MARIA NEWMAN
As New Jersey braces for a work stoppage by doctors on Monday, physicians are canceling appointments, emergency rooms are planning for a sudden influx of patients, and many residents — including the governor — are beginning to fret about disruptions in health care.
A movement that began last summer with isolated grumbling about soaring premiums for malpractice insurance has drawn broad support from doctors across the state and now seems poised to interrupt the everyday interaction between them and their patients.
Whether those interruptions will last a day, a few days or longer is uncertain. But for Monday, at least, officials of the Medical Society of New Jersey, which supports the action, are predicting that thousands of doctors will cancel their office appointments for nonemergency care.
The president of the society, Dr. Robert S. Rigolosi, estimated yesterday that 5,000 to 10,000 physicians would participate. New Jersey has 22,000 practicing doctors.
"We're talking about thousands of doctors in New Jersey being involved," said Dr. Thomas Ahlborn, the director of surgery at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood. "There's never been anything like this in the country."
About two dozen surgeons in West Virginia staged a walkout earlier this month, prompting a state legislative committee to approve a cap on juries' malpractice awards, and inspiring doctors here to try the same strategy.
But Gov. James E. McGreevey's spokesman denounced the threatened job action as irresponsible and counterproductive as Mr. McGreevey and state legislators tried to resolve the thorny issue of helping doctors who face steep increases in their malpractice insurance premiums.
"The governor believes it's a monumentally bad idea for the doctors to strike while he's trying to fix the problem," said the spokesman, Micah Rasmussen. "That's not the way to solve this problem."
The doctors seemed in no mood yesterday to relax either their threat or their demands that the Legislature enact a $250,000 cap on jury awards for so-called pain and suffering damages for victims of medical negligence.
New Jersey's trial lawyers are adamantly opposed to any such cap, and Mr. McGreevey has expressed sympathy with lawyers' opposition to curbs on victims' rights to sue doctors for serious medical mistakes.
A coalition of groups, including the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group and Consumers for Civil Justice, rallied at the State House in Trenton yesterday to oppose any such limits.
Mr. Rasmussen said the governor favored the creation of a subsidy program to help those doctors who face the steepest increase in premiums.
But Dr. Rigolosi said the medical society was not interested in subsidies.
"The answer is to cap the award," he said, adding that doctors were not seeking limits on awards for a malpractice victim's medical costs or lost pay.
Dr. Rigolosi said the duration of the work stoppage would vary from doctor to doctor, with some participating one day, some several days, and some perhaps into the next week. For many, he said, the protest would last at least two days.
The doctors planned a demonstration outside the State House on Tuesday morning.
In recent days, doctors have been sending patients a version of a letter endorsed by the medical society that says their "ability to take care of your medical problems is in great jeopardy" because of a legal system that doctors say encourages patients to file frivolous lawsuits "in the hope of `hitting the lottery.' "
Dr. Ahlborn said he would close his office on Monday to all patients except those recovering from surgery or facing an immediate emergency. He also said that all elective surgery at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood would be canceled on Monday.
Dr. Thomas Pitoscia, an internist in Millburn, also said he had canceled appointments for Monday. He said he would see patients who need immediate care, "but if you want a physical or have a minor ailment, then you will have to wait a day."
"We are going to start with one day and see if anything comes out of that," he said. "I think doctors are prepared to do this again and again until we see results."
He and other physicians said hospitals around the state were increasing emergency room staffs in anticipation of the walkout.
Kerry McKean-Kelley, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Hospital Association, which represents 106 of New Jersey's 117 hospitals, said contingency planning had been under way for weeks.
"We do expect to see added pressures in the emergency rooms," she said. "The physicians planning the job actions have been very cooperative with the hospitals ahead of time to make sure patient care is not compromised."
She said some doctors who canceled office hours plan to visit patients who are hospitalized. But, she said, many hospitals have canceled elective surgeries and nonemergency procedures.
Dr. Peter J. DeMauro, chief of staff at the Hackensack University Medical Center, said the hospital had staff physicians in all specialities prepared to handle an increase in emergency-room visits.
Still, some New Jerseyans were jittery.
Margaret Johnston, 68, of Union, said she heard about the potential work stoppage yesterday and quickly arranged to see her doctor on Friday.
"I don't really have any serious ailments, but I just want to be on the safe side in case they stop working for a while," she said.
But Carol Deus, 55, of Martinsville, a diabetic who is recovering from back surgery, said she was unaware of the job action.
"If I have a serious problem," she said, "I won't hesitate to go to an emergency room."
Michael Billington, 42, a construction worker from West Orange, said he sympathized with doctors facing high premiums. "While I understand their situation, I hope it's resolved quickly," he said.
Why don't you go find a lawyer and beat his a**? Doctors are under no obligation to work if they can make a better living doing something else.
Do you think doctors are slaves to your wishes?
How so? What do you think happened to doctors whose specialty was treating polio? They either adapted or got out of the business, just like anyone else.
For this they have no "contract" and no obligation, legal or otherwise????
Are you suggesting doctors are obligated by social contract to work for little or no salary? Or even at a loss? Why must they subvert their ability to pay their own mortgage/bills, kids' college, etc?
Nonsense! The majority of lawsuits are frivolous - not based on negligence on doctors' parts but rather on poor outcomes of risky procedures. Let's see some stats regarding the way they "mess us so much" and see just how many "alot" is.
Right. If McDonald's food didn't kill children by making them fat, that lawyer wouldn't have sued them.
You live in a fantasy universe.
I'm not gonna beat the dead horse.
I am in favor of what you describe as opening the medical field to others. It is licensure laws, whether for docs, plumbers, lawyers or hairdressers that keep the numbers down, all in the charade of "protecting" the public. You are quite right, it is government laws that gives them the lock on their clients you reference.
You are quite wrong, OTOH, about no other profession having such protection. Lawyers would be one good example...but then a lawyers work stopage would be a wonderful thing! But, really, any field that requires licensure to be able to work has similar protection.
Meanwhile, do me a small favor and sit back, get a cup of your favorite morning beverage, and read about 'Medical Care as a Right - a Refutation' and tell me what you think.
I've fired them. Sorry I didn't notify you first.
Do you have any - ANY - data to support that assertion?
In most states, you can't even file a lawsuit against a doctor without getting an affidavit from another doctor stating that the defendant doctor was negligent. While certainly some of those doctors providing the affidavits are "hired guns," there is no way you can show that the "majority" of them are.
Not suggesting anything...I am saying that the medical profession cannot have it both ways. Protection thru licensure from government, from competion and with no accompanying obligation. CA is importing Mexican doctors, "under contract" to serve people in southern CA that have little or no medical care. American doctors have chosen not to serve them because of their inability to pay. Thats fine with me. That is their right. Now if the middle class CA people that are on the borderline of ability to pay, decide they also would accept inferior care because it would be available, I suspect the medical profession would be up in arms.
Also the government restricts the number of foreign doctors allowed into this country. I have seen no restrictions on the numbers of Mexicans that arrive and become plumbers, carpenters etc. Protectionism of a profession. The socialists see this and they will use it to bring about socialized medicine in this country. Then we will all be in the same boat pointing fingers at each other.
I agree. If it were up to me there would be no state licensure of doctors - people would make their decision based on a doctor's education, experience, and past record.
My next door neighbor, ob/gyn, has no problem hiring Mexican day laborers to work for him. However if a Mexican doctor showed up in town, I suspect he would be on the phone. Having a lock on your clients is every professions dream. I hire local black handymen, you see the rest of the picture.
Just as an example, there was a thread on here the other day about a doctor that was being sued because he marked a uterous he WAS TAKING OUT with the initials of his alma mater, University of Kentucky.
The doctor made a video tape for the couple of the procedure and as they sat down to watch it some time later they saw the doctor mark the uterous.
Of course, now they grabbed a lawyer and are suing the doctor.
Is this your idea of a credible lawsuit? Sure it's just one example but there are many more out there. Admit that it's lawsuits like this one, in the majority or not, that raise the cost of malpractice insurance.
Frivolous claims have a marginal effect on premiums. There is simply no support for the claim that malpractice premiums are skyrocketing as a result of unmerited lawsuits.
You think whipping a doctor's a$$ sounds mature and reasonable? You have the right to go to any doctor you choose; a doctor has the same right to treat you or not.
The frivolous lawsuits are the problem. Not the doctors.
"Perry has attributed the malpractice insurance crisis to the growing number of "frivolous and abusive" lawsuits, and to escalating damage awards, settlements and legal expenses. He says 86 percent of medical malpractice claims are dismissed without payouts."These are two that popped up quick on Google.-Perry puts priority on medical malpractice
"The White House said the president's plan could save the federal government $30 billion annually in health costs and could reduce such costs for all Americans by $60 billion or more."
"Perry has attributed the malpractice insurance crisis to the growing number of "frivolous and abusive" lawsuits, and to escalating damage awards, settlements and legal expenses. He says 86 percent of medical malpractice claims are dismissed without payouts."
It doesn't take a lot of effort to see the inherent contradiction here. If 86 percent of claims are dismissed without payouts, why do we need to address this issue by focusing on the other 14%?
Mississippi Medical Malpractice Update Mississippi Enacts PLI Reform Law During Special Session
On October 8, 2002, the Mississippi legislature passed and Governor Musgrove signed a bill addressing physician professional liability reform. Several of AOA’s reform principles were addressed.
Non-economic damage limitations
The new law includes non-economic damage caps:
A $500,000 cap in place on Jan. 1, 2003, increasing to $750,000 on Jan. 1, 2011,and to $1 million on Jan. 1, 2017. This cap does not apply to damages for disfigurement. This cap does not apply if the judge decides that the jury can award punitive damages. Also, the cap does not apply to economic damages.
Joint and several liability
Ends joint liability for non-economic damages. This means that defendants will only need to pay for their percentage of fault. Changes joint and several liability standards for economic damages: If the defendant is less than 30% responsible then she or he only needs to pay that percentage of economic damages,
and
If the defendant is 30% or more responsible then she or her can be made to pay for up to 50% of economic damages. Good Samaritan Immunity from Liability
Any licensed physician who voluntarily provides in good faith needed medical or health services to any program at an accredited school in the state without the expectation of payment shall be immune from liability for any civil action arising out of the provision of such medical or health services, except for cases of willful acts or gross negligence. This immunity applies only if the physician and patient complete a written waiver before medical services specifying that such services are provided without the expectation of payment and that the licensed physician shall be immune. A physician who provides free medical services under a special volunteer medical license is immune from liability for any civil action arising out of any act or omission resulting from the rendering of the medical service unless the act or omission was the result of the physician's gross negligence or willful misconduct. In order for the immunity under this subsection to apply, there must be a written or oral agreement for the physician to provide a voluntary noncompensated medical service before the physician provides the services.
Statute of Limitations
Establishes a statute of limitations of two years from the date that the malpractice occurred or should have been discovered, no later than seven years from occurrence. However, this rule has the following exceptions:
Exception for foreign bodies states that the time period for filing suit starts when the foreign body is discovered. Exception for fraud states that the time period for filing suit starts when the fraud is discovered. If the malpractice is against a child under the age of six, then the time to file a lawsuit extends until the child reaches age eight. If the malpractice is against a child who does not have a parent when the malpractice was or should have been discovered, then the time to file a lawsuit continues for two years after the parent’s death. If the malpractice is against a person who is of “unsound mind” when the malpractice was or should have been discovered, then the time to file a lawsuit continues for two years after no longer disabled.
Venue for lawsuits
All lawsuits against doctors and other health care professionals based their medical services must only be filed in the county where the wrongdoing occurred. This provision prevents plaintiffs from choosing a sympathetic area in which to file a lawsuit.
Not included in the newly enacted law are:
Periodic payments of future damages Offsets for collateral sources Limitations on attorney contingency fees
There's two factors at play here:
1. The high cost of defending frivolous suits until they're dismissed (or the cost of paying them to go away)
2. The excessive awards assessed for the remaining 14%. Economic damages are meant to cover a person if they're disabled as a result of negligence - punitive damages are being awarded as though the person hit the lottery. If you want to punish a doctor for negligence conduct a criminal trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.