Medical Malpractice Reform Considered in House (HR-5)

Washington Times ^ | March 7, 2003

[gas_dr]

The House took a major step toward passage of medical liability reform legislation this week, as the Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to approve H.R. 5, a bill which would cap "non-economic" medical malpractice awards at $250,000. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the bill yesterday. The bill, introduced by Rep. James Greenwood, Pennsylvania Republican, and strongly supported by the Bush administration, is expected to reach the House floor by the middle of next week.

[gas_dr]

My first post, but I think this is important. Please contact your representatives and URGE them to pass HR-5 for the sake of medicine in this country.

This malpractice crises is grave on many fronts, but one of the scariest aspects is that if the demoncrats get back in power with this still going on, it may be the trigger for them to successfully create socialized medicine.

[white trash redneck]

From your tag, I assume you're an anesthesiologist.

As a physician, I support tort reform as well. However, I have misgivings about addressing what is a state-by-state problem via national legislation. While I applaud the aims of HR-5, I'm not sure it squares with the concept of federalism. I'd be interested in what a thoughtful legal scholar (for example, like Eugene Volokh, Hugh Hewitt - NOT some sack-of-sh!* trial lawyer) has to say about this.

[Savage Beast]

Medical malpractice reform is of utmost importance to the American people.

One of the worst problems is the uncertainty.

If some cap is placed on awards, malpractice insurance companies can calculate expected costs and charge reasonable premiums to cover them--and thus stay in business.

If doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers can depend upon their insurance to cover whatever mistakes may occur, they will be able to stop practicing "defensive medicine"; this can drastically reduce health care costs.

If the trial lawyers' tribute can be eliminated (or even reduced), health care costs can be drastically reduced.

If the cost of malpractice insurance premiums can be reduced, the cost can be passed on to health care insurance providers and ultimately the people.

The present system is not working. Paying an army of lawyers billions of dollars to police the system has enriched them beyond anyone's wildest dreams and has not eliminated mistakes. It never will, because humans are not infallible. And it has priced health care out of the reach of everyone!

What I want is to be able to afford health care for myself and my family. I don't want to sue my doctor, and I don't want to be forced to pay tribute to an army of lawyers or to pay them to police the system.

[Mamzelle]

re: I'm not sure it squares with the concept of federalism. )))

That's because it really doesn't. What we're talking is bully pulpit (both executive and legislative) more than anything. Fact is, these non-econ damages have to be considered only as a point of beginning rather than a solution. But as an influence over the rest of the country, it'll become "standard of care" in getting the insurance policies off the respirator and back to breathing on their own.

[applemac_g4]

"My first post, but I think this is important. Please contact your representatives and URGE them to pass HR-5 for the sake of medicine in this country."

Absolutely correct! Passing this single law would go a long ways towards fixing what's wrong with medicine in the United States.

Bump.

[NYFriend]

In New York State, the Medical Society (physicians group) has been advocating capping non-economic damages at a quarter-million for some time. California did this years ago (1976?). They have seen significantly lower medical malpractice rates compared to NY. Trial Lawyers have been saying that the California cap, which isn't indexed for inflation, is too low now. I leave that to the legislators.

New York tried to control malpractice jury awards by creating a tiered contingency fee schedule for attorney’s fees. Basically, instead of 33 1/3% of the award, lawyers in malpractice cases get 30% of the first $250K, 25% of the next $250K, 20% of the next $500K and so on. It means that on a $1.5 million award an attorney would get $281K as a fee instead of $500K. The idea was to reduce the incentive for lawyers to push for bigger fees. It does nothing to reduce the incentive for clients to push for bigger fees. I am told, and take it on faith, that this law had reduced verdicts and settlements. It has not been as effective as the California system the H-5 follows.

Here's the catch, H-5 is not guaranteed to reduce the cost of health care. Tort reform, in my opinion is the only way to save health care in America. The problem is that reducing awards does not grantee reduced malpractice premiums. At least not right away. It will take market competition to bring down the premiums. In some states, like NY where many insurance premium changes have to be approved by the Insurance Department, these rates may be held up until experience shows how much this cap will reduce liability. You don't want to let insurance companies set rates so low that they jeopardize the insurance companies financial ability to pay likely judgments. We've seen in the past where insurance market competition has driven rates too low in the short run and put companies in danger of insolvency. That would mean that your insurance is worthless.

The number one thing this bill would do is prevent future malpractice premium increases and ultimately health insurance premiums. Eventually, this would result in lower health care costs, but it might take a while in some places.

The argument that you will hear against this, from trial lawyers, is that we trust juries to send people to death in criminal cases, so we should trust them to award damages in civil cases. I'm not advancing this argument, I'm just passing it along. H-5 is a good bill, there are just a few good arguments against it. Frankly, the perfect solution would be to have doctors be right 100% of the time, but that's as unrealistic as a perfect tort reform bill.

[gas_dr]

If the cost of malpractice insurance premiums can be reduced, the cost can be passed on to health care insurance providers and ultimately the people.

Insurance groups in the state that I am from have stated that they stand ready to immediately reduce premiums if this becomes law on either a state or local level. You are correct, this would start to reduce the costs of healthcare, and place the money for healthcare back with the patient instead of the insurance company and lawyers.

[Coleus]

Yes, I agree with the redneck, we do have a 10th Amendment which gives the states the right to pass their own legislation without the Feds. budding in. In NJ, the doctors actually left work for a day and protested in Trenton and at the legislative office of the Senator in charge of that particular committee for insurance reform. They are going to do it again since nothing really happened, except talk. They pay the highest malpractice premiums in the nation, over 18 neurosurgeons have left the state because of this. My, OB's, stopped practicing.

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?sconfig=njo&xref=1&xpath.category_letter=&xpath.pubdate=03%2F07%2F03+03%2F06%2F03+03%2F05%2F03+03%2F04%2F03+03%2F03%2F03+03%2F02%2F03+03%2F01%2F03+02%2F28%2F03+02%2F27%2F03+02%2F26%2F03+02%2F25%2F03+02%2F24%2F03+02%2F23%2F03+02%2F22%2F03&xpath.any=malpractice&count=20

[TheGrimReaper]

FYI:
86% of the medical malpractice suits in Texas are summarily dismissed by judges as frivolous, and never go to trial.

For the mathematically impaired, this means that at least 6 of every 7 Texas malpractice suits are pure BS...a trial attorney rolling the dice to see if he/she can hit the jackpot. (Excuse the mixed metaphor.)

[Teacher317]

Indiana already limits non-economic damages, and even sends 75% of them to a state fund, not to the plaintiff. (Tort law is designed to compensate for a person's loss, not reward them for another's error. If a jury decides that a doctor should be economically punished, there's no reason to award it to the plainitff and encourage the lottery-hounds out there to look for the big payday.)

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Medical malpractice reform is a crime. In California, injured patients are limited to $250,000 general damages no matter WHAT the doctor did to them. That is the 1970's number, which HASNT been adjusted for inflation.

There are many injured people who cannot even find an attorney to take their case because the costs of a case are so high, and the potential recovery is so low.

[gas_dr]

That landmark study was not as you say. According to some experts (not medicine types that I am aware) the "best care" is not being used 50% of the time. If you read further the "best care" is that agreed to be certain experts. Medicine is an ART, not a science, and there are several areas that are controversial in terms of care. This was A TERRIBLE, CHEAP SHOT at practicioners. Many of my colleageus are becoming so attacked by these type of hatchet jobs that people are leaving the field. Soon people will have limited access because of crap like this and malpractice.