Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 02, 2008
David A. Ridenour :: Townhall.com Columnist
Excessive Jury Verdicts Lead to Excessive Health Care Costs
by David A. Ridenour
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Americans love hospital-based TV shows, ranging from such oldies as Marcus Welby, M.D. to today's Grey's Anatomy, in which dedicated doctors rush to help victims of car crashes, chemical spills, natural disasters, and even terrorism.

Sadly, in real life, when it comes to our health care, Dr. Welby doesn’t have the upper hand. Our health care system is vulnerable to plaintiff lawyers’ avarice.

Some lawsuits, of course, are well-intentioned and appropriate, but those guided mostly by greed play a regrettable role in our nation's ever-escalating health care costs.

Unnecessary lawsuits and excessive awards that unnecessarily increase the direct costs and future liability risk of health care providers add to the current crisis.

Consider a $25 million dollar court award against a nonprofit charitable West Virginia hospital over a dispute that involved as personal pride as personal injury.

A local physician was irked when the Charleston Area Medical Center refused to recognize his medical malpractice self-insurance plan. After settlement negotiations failed, he took the medical center to court and won a $25-million award from local jurors.

Now an excessive punitive damage award to a doctor disgruntled over having his clinical privileges temporarily relinquished presents challenges to this medical center that provides good health care to a far-flung patient community that includes many of Appalachia's poor.

Doctor John H. Schmidt III, who also practices at this hospital and who acknowledges that he could some day benefit from the plaintiff’s victory, nonetheless put the huge $25-million award into perspective: “I worry about what a $25 million loss will mean... Will programs for diabetes education or cancer treatment be affected? Will the area's only Level III neonatal intensive care unit be threatened? Will there be cutbacks to programs for young expectant mothers or those for physicians in training? Will the ‘Top 50’ award for the Center's Cardiac Surgery and Cardiology Services be compromised as quality programs necessary to sustain them are underfunded? Will the Trauma Center fail to maintain a Level I status?”

While West Virginia's judicial climate still is ranked the worst in America in a recent survey of national employers, many other states also face a shortage of physicians and rising health care tabs in part because their judicial systems encourage an abundance of personal injury lawsuits.

* Hospital officials in Maryland are projecting a physician shortage that could be severe by 2015. Lawsuit liabilities, low physician reimbursements and limited medical school capacity are key elements.

* An exodus of top physicians already is occurring in New York, in large part because of rising malpractice insurance premiums. The situation is so serious the New York state government is considering using taxpayers’ money to help stem the state’s malpractice insurance crisis.

* Hawaii's medical association reports that climbing malpractice insurance costs have created physician shortages, even in that lush paradise. According to a report by Hawaii’s KGMB-TV, 42 percent of Hawaii’s OB-GYNs and 30 percent of Hawaii's orthopedic surgeons have already either left Hawaii or made plans to stop providing pregnancy care. The cost of medical malpractice insurance rose 90 percent between 2002-2007.

* A decade ago, Philadelphia had 19 hospitals that delivered babies. Today, only eight obstetric facilities remain, in part because of the relentless rise of malpractice premiums.

Unwanted patient outcomes are spurring high-payout lawsuits that ultimately damage health care delivery to millions.

A Chicago jury rendered a $22-million verdict against a hospital and a doctor when a woman died in childbirth because her high blood pressure led to a fatal hemorrhage. The money awarded her loved ones for loss of companionship could have been used to improve child-birthing resources for countless local mothers-to-be, or for other health care needs.

Amid the varying dynamics affecting patient care, liability is a common thread. Fortunately, some states are reducing their health care bills by capping court awards against doctors and hospitals.

California - often a national trendsetter - started the reform movement in 1975 when Marcus Welby, MD was still airing on TV. California’s medical malpractice premiums dropped dramatically and its doctor shortage disappeared shortly afterward.

Texas' 2003 damage cap law is heralded for causing about 3,000 doctors to seek licenses to practice in the Lone Star State in 2007 alone.

With America's health care increases far outpacing the cost of living index, West Virginia and other judicial hellhole states should wake up and take a cue from California and Texas.

The health of their residents may depend upon it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

David A. Ridenour is vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a position he has held since 1986.

Be the first to read David A. Ridenour’s column.
Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today
gullible
Rising health care costs couldn't have anything to do with the fact that pharmaceutical companies rake in profits dwarfing any other industry. They couldn't have anything to do with the fact that their CEOs are among the hightest paid. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US, alone among industrial nations, has a health care system designed to help investors rather than patients. Nor could the costs spent on buying off politicians and doctors have anything to do with it.

Ridenour is either a mouthpiece for the health care industry or very gullible.

The Tort Law Industry
Anyone who ignores the flood of deadbeat illegal immigrants slamming our hospitals and the fact that the USA carried more Tort Lawyers per capita than anywhere else in the world by leaps and bounds has absolutely no credibility.

Maybe if we stopped wasting billions of dollars on pointlessly expensive surgeries and treatments that only delay the inevitable by a weak of hospice care we wouldn't have such a big problem. Forget about that option, though. Every time a terminal patient dies a week earlier because someone didn't want to throw a million dollars down a whole some scumbag lawyer sees another lottery ticket.

Maybe if we relaxed our Facistic grip on Health Insurance and allowed people to shop competitively like they do for Life Insurance we'd save some money. Drop this tax penalty on anyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer already!

Frankly, the Democratic (read: National Socialist) party completely invested in running up our bills to feed their parasite lawyer constituencies, continue to suppress the free market, and tax businesses and the working class to death to finance a yoke of dependency on their well-farmed permanent underclass.

Federal licence
Personally, I think a lot of the suits would stop if we make med licences nationwide. If a plastic surgeon,for instance loses his licence in Michigan then he should lose it in California as well. also, if a Dr. is found guilty of malpractice then make it law that his future patients have to be informed. The big one with me is that ANY Dr. that knows that a Dr is screwing up and says nothing, them he should be found just as guilty. Once they start policing themselves, because they know their butts are in the open things will settle down.

this author has no idea
It is very hard to win a case against a health care provider. In Pennsylvania, the stats are posted on line.

Here are the links:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/MedicalMalpractice/MedM alFilingsStatewide2000-2007.pdf

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/MedicalMalpractice/Jury Verdicts2007.pdf

82.7% of the time Doctors and providers win at trial. In 2007, only 2 verdicts in excess of $5,000,000.

Most states have implemented some form of Med Mal reform -- there are about 1/2 has many filings as 10 years ago.

Those who claim such a crisis exists are either (1) ignorant, or (2) liars. I suppose they might also be both as well.

Tort reform is the cure
Ridenour did a good job explaining how resources are diverted from doctors to trial lawyers. It should also be pointed out why this is.

There is an unholy marriage between trial lawyers and the Democrat party. Trial lawyers -- or, as I prefer, extortion specialists -- are the single largest source of funds for the Democrat party. This is why Democrats oppose tort reform that would stop lawsuit abuse and runaway verdicts. John Edwards is a case in point. His millions largely came from suing healthcare providers. I don't begrudge Edwards his wealth or his 28,000 square foot mansion, but I do resent the way he earned it, because it came at a huge human cost. There are now many Americans who have no access to OB/GYN doctors because they moved out of extortion-friendly states to escape trial lawyers like Edwards.

The other devastating thing is rising costs. When a doctor has to spend $200,000 a year on liability insurance, that cost is passed on to the consumer like any other cost. Even when a lawsuit is frivolous, doctors can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves. Naturally, those costs are passed on through higher insurance premiums.

Tort reform is the cure for this disease.

just factually wrong
this author is fact challenged.

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.


The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.


here is the link

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2005/0 6/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

facts part one
As just one example, the New York Center for Justice and Democracy, in January, 2007, debunked several medical malpractice myths, (See: “THE TRUTH ABOUT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LITIGATION“) such as:

CONTRARY TO POPULAR MYTH, FEW INJURED PATIENTS FILE LAWSUITS.

FAR FROM BEING “BROKEN,” THE CURRENT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SYSTEM WORKS WELL

THE VAST MAJORITY OF TRUE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES SETTLE; “FRIVOLOUS” CASES DO NOT SETTLE.

THE NUMBER OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PAYMENTS IS DECLINING.

Now, here are the FACTS that support these conclusions:

* In 2004, medical malpractice cases accounted for an average of only four percent of tort cases;
* Between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year (and 300,000 are injured) due to medical errors in hospitals alone. Yet eight times as many patients are injured as ever file a claim; 16 times as many suffer injuries as receive any compensation;
* The Harvard School of Public Health recently found that the current system works: legitimate claims are being paid, non-legitimate claims are generally not being paid, and “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”;
* In the Harvard closed claims study, only fifteen percent of claims were decided by trial verdict. Other research shows that 90 percent of cases are settled without jury trial, with some estimates indicating that the figure is as high as 97 percent;
*

facts part two
* As Duke Law professor Neil Vidmar, who has extensively studied medical malpractice litigation, recently testified in the U.S. Senate, “Research on why insurers actually settle cases indicates that the driving force in most instances is whether the insurance company and their lawyers conclude, on the basis of their own internal review, that the medical provider was negligent.….An earlier study by Rosenblatt and Hurst examined 54 obstetric malpractice claims for negligence. For cases in which settlement payments were made there was general consensus among insurance company staff, medical experts and defense attorneys that some lapse in the standard of care had occurred. No payments were made in the cases in which these various reviewers decided there was no lapse in the standard of care.”;
* According to Public Citizen’s analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) data, between 1991 and 2005, the total number of malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors declined 15.4 percent (with judgments and settlements).;
* Public Citizen’s analysis also found that between 1991 and 2005, the number of malpractice payments per 100,000 Americans dropped more than ten percent;
* According to Public Citizen’s analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) data, “the annual average payment for a medical malpractice verdict has not exceeded $1 million in real dollars since the beginning of the NPDB. The average payment for a medical malpractice verdict in 1991 was $284,896. In 2005, the average was $461,524. Adjusting for inflation, however, shows that the average is actually declining. The 2005 average adjusted for inflation is only $260,890 — a decline of 8 percent since 1991.”;

facts part three
* Public Citizen also found that the total number of malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors, including judgments and settlements, declined 15.4 percent from 2001-2005 (from 16,588 in 2001 to 14,033 in 2005) and “the number of payments per 100,000 people in the U.S. also fell since 2001 – from 5.82 to 4.73 – a decline of 18.6 percent. Since 1991, the number of payments per 100,000 people declined more than 10 percent.”;
* Frivolous claims are also a myth. According to Duke University Law Professor Neil Vidmar, “the magnitude of jury awards in medical malpractice tort cases positively correlated with the severity of the plaintiffs’ injuries, except that injuries resulting in death tended to result in awards substantially lower than injuries resulting in severe permanent injury, such as quadriplegia. I and two colleagues conducted a study of malpractice verdicts in New York, Florida, and California. We also found that jury awards of prevailing plaintiffs in malpractice cases were correlated with the severity of the injury.”;
* Contrary to popularly held notions, “According to the Harvard School of Public Health, patients “rarely won damages at trial, prevailing in only 21 percent of verdicts as compared with 61 percent of claims resolved out of court.”;

facts part four
A * The New England Journal of Medicine confirmed in a breakthrough article by George J. Annas, J.D., M.P.H., that litigation against hospitals improves the quality of care for patients;
* According to a recent study by Dr. Thomas Gallagher, a University of Washington internal-medicine physician and co-author of two studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, “Comparisons of how Canadian and U.S. doctors disclose mistakes point to a ‘culture of medicine,’ not lawyers, for their behavior.”;
* The Congressional Budget Office found that “Malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of [health care] spending,” and that all the provisions of the federal medical malpractice bill, including a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, “would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.“

lib
I don't often agree with you but this time you are right.

Saying litigation is driving up medical costs IS a canard.


Clark Howard spent a lot of time on this one day. Sharing info from a study from one of the big medical institutions.

(I use a topical steroid nasal spray for allergies. When the cost went up to @$70.00 a bottle I started getting it from Canada. I can get three bottles generic (not offered in US) for @$45.00.)

Big Pharma saying they need to charge exorbitant prices to fund R&D is also a canard.

Hold on a second...
"82.7% of the time Doctors and providers win at trial."

Does this mean that in less than 20% of the trials the doctors and providers are found negligent? If so, this is a lot of money in attorney's fees when there is no finding of negligence. Also, remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court but liable for millions of dollars for the same afternoon's activities, so it looks like it is pretty easy to win a lawsuit.

my compliments to religiouslib
for a reasoned and proper assessment of the facts, it is refreshing to see someone responsibly approach these subjects in an intelligent fact based presentation.

For several years, I was associated wit the leading insurance bad faith law firm in the entire country, if not the world. Our small firm set precedent after precedent in the birthplace of punitive damage awards, California from which all blessings flow.

And while it is true that there is a closely held association between the Democratic Party and the Trial Lawyers associations, and while it is true that major PAC's favor Democrat candidates, it simply isn't true that the reason for the high costs of medical care are genuinely impacted by punitive damage awards or, for that matter, medical malpractice judgments as is amply expanded upon by religiouslib.

Our firm, the most successful was comprised of a half dozen lawyers. Our principal, one of the more noteworthy plaintiff's attorneys in the country made millions..........but in one year, he hardly came even close to the kind of money which many CEO's of pharmaceuticals and/or large hospital chains or the many celebrities in Hollyowood, not by a long shot.

Contrary to popular belief, Insurance companies do not make megaprofits either, they are highly regulated by the States in which they are licensed and are frequently examined by State auditors.

The culprits here are the greedy doctors and out of control hospitals, enabled by a lax system that gave birth to the condition we now see in the USA by reason of the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.

Take it to the bank.

Pjal
Doctors have to have a certain amount of greed in order to pay $100,000 a year in liability insurance costs.

That IS the reason for high meical costs.

Texas tort reform
As a Texas resident, I witnessed tort reform first hand. The insurance companies hoodwinked the doctors into thinking the reason their rates were skyrocketing was due to runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits. As the arguments went further down the road, those against tort reform challenged the insurance companies to guarantee rates would go down once tort reform was passed. Not only would they refuse to make this guarantee, they refused to guarantee the rates would stop increasing. Kudos to the insurance companies on their PR campaign, and even more impressively, on their ability five years later to still have people such as this author believing lawsuits remain the culprit of the excessive malpractice rates. You can hardly find a med mal attorney in Texas anymore.

Lost in Paradise
Lost in paradise - Your comment regarding OJ is a little misplaced.

"Also, remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court but liable for millions of dollars for the same afternoon's activities, so it looks like it is pretty easy to win a lawsuit."

First, you are dealing with two completely different burdens of proof. It should be much more difficult to convict a person of murder than to reach a verdict in a civil case. Furthermore, a med mal case is one of the hardest cases to win in all of civil law. It does not benefit a plaintiff's attorney to file and work up bad cases. He is the one fronting all of the expense to do so. If a plaintiff's attorney does not get a verdict, he eats his expenses and does not get paid. In working up a med mal case or a products case, it is not unreasonable to spend upwards of $250K. For both sides to be willing to spend that kind of money, they better be convinced they are right. Furthermore, in Texas there is a way to have the other side pay your attorney's fees via an offer of judgment. If the defendant offers to settle the case, even for a nominal amount, and the plaintiff loses or gets a similar verdict, the plaintiff is responsible for paying the attorney's fees from the day the offer of judgment was made forward.


Eastlake Joe....
What a great idea to have MDs licensed by the feds, applicable nationwide. No state-hopping for incompetent MDs.

I once wondered why lawyers were prevented from advertising. I now see why several times a day.

I think one way to resolve this is to enact tort reform--preempt state laws with a federal law making the losing ATTORNEY pay the others' legal bills. When one is right, fight. When one is wrong, settle.

Have a great day, unless you are a lawyer. If so, may you lose your next thousand cases!!

Ya'll just don't get it.
States with no tort reforms have doctors leaving in droves. Why? Because malpractice insurance is so much higher.

It's not the lawsuits themselves, but the malpractice insurance that's driving up health care.

First, we need national tort reform, everyone on the same page, so doctors can practice without prejudice.

Second, it's time the government recognized the serious trouble our health care system is in and came to their aid. NO MORE MALPRACTICE INSURANCE, the government has your back.

Any kind of payout would come from the government, not the hospitals or doctors insurance.

Immediately costs would take a nose dive across the board.
No longer will HMO's dictate to doctors and hospitals what they will and won't do in the emergency room.
No longer will the majority of Americans be treated in emergency where costs are 10x that of preventitive care.
No longer will the cost of health insurance be out of reach for consumers.

Third, a three strike law. If a doctor is found guilty of negligence three times, he's done - he can't go hang his shingle anywhere in the U.S.

Health care can be fixed overnight. But the government needs to treat our health care industry like national security.

A few thoughts
All of these “studies” done about malpractice litigation ignore the reality on the ground, which is:

1) Malpractice premiums are sky-high, and it matters little that this might be a result of other insurance company investments going south. The facts are that this insurance is expensive, buying it represents an out-of-pocket, up-front cost of doing business, it's not going away, and its cost will continue to be passed on to the patients.

2) Beyond the cost of malpractice insurance, the other costs incurred in protecting oneself and one’s hospital from the POSSIBLILTY of a financially and professionally ruinous lawsuit are also considerable. It's possible that the reasons for the relative decline in successful malpractice lawsuits are simply that doctors and hospitals have become much more vigilant in the measures they take to guard against even the perception of malpractice, with the increased costs of implementing these preventive measures being, of course, passed on to the patients. Thanks to these changes, many potential disasters have been averted, which is all to the good. But they’re expensive changes, and these expenses are going to stay in place long after the trial lawyers have decided to move on to plow more fertile ground.

As for the shortage of doctors, that’s probably going to get worse, as more and more qualified people decide that the practice of medicine today is just not worth the aggravation, and elect to apply their talents in other fields. However, this will be balanced by primary care being taken over by nurse-practitioners, “doctor nurses” and physicians’ assistants. In the future, the only reason to go through medical school and extended post-graduate training will be to specialize.

Feargal
then perhaps you can explain why doctors are fleeing Florida in droves- in this medical practitioners' paradise where more people need more medical care than any other state there is a shortage of every specialty-and even nurses are leaving.

Not only is insurance driving them out, but medicare reimbursements don't even pay the overhead.
Of course juries here are mostly made up of "concerned" folks who never met a "plaintiff" they didn't sob over

here is what is ironic
the author himself went to court and sued the dept. of energy for documents related to a personal issue.

then appealed and lost.

here is the link

http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/vfa0570.htm

The libs
always use anecdotal stories whenever they want to make a point about universal health care, but when the cons make anecdotal points the scream and have a temper tantrum. 44 million Americans without out health care, wrong without health insurance. Lets change the whole system for these 44 million Americans. who cares if they can afford insurance but don't want to spend the money because they are young and healthy. Make them pay what everyone else pays. The Dems talk about national healthcare but I have yet to hear what the average person will have to pay. Will everyone pay the same or will some pay more because they make more. The European system is not all that great. Basically if you drink too much smoke too much etc. tough you brought it upon yourself. To bad if you've contributed thousands of euro's.

Healthcare system anti-life?

Pro Birth or Pro Life?

MSNBC-Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant

17-year-old girl died hours after Cigna finally agreed to pay for new liver

The family of a 17-year-old girl who died hours after her health insurer reversed a decision and said it would pay for a liver transplant plans to sue the company, their attorney said Friday.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday at about 6 p.m. at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

Attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare in the case. The insurer “maliciously killed her” because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said

WATCH

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/healthcare-system- anti-life

2 Things:
1. We need to implement immediately a windfall profits tax on the 30 - 45% of any legal award that goes to plaintiff's attorneys (I'd say 100% tax on anything after allowing the attorneys a VERY generous $100/hr for legal work and $50/hour for staff work plus reimbursement for all out-of-pocket costs). This way, we can be sure we eliminate those cases (probably 80% of them) that are only being brought because of the potential huge payday for the LAWYERS.


Part 2
2. Every time some individual makes a personal decision NOT to mitigate the risks in their lives (e.g., health insurance, house, car or apt. insurance, getting an adequate education, being mobile when young to go to where the jobs are, having unprotected sex), all of which are personal decisions, whenever the inevitable happens (i.e., they get put in a crisis because of THEIR decisions), they want and expect the rest of Americans to bail them out. And because our politicians when they pander for votes "sell" them the notion that they SHOULD be bailed out, they reinforce this socialistic mindset of the people. We are left with what is fast approaching a majority of Americans that ultimately bear no responsibility over their lives - and they are none to happy to abdicate their rights to make decisions to the government. We need punitive punishments in place for these people. Let's start with the tax code. People want to make a personal decision NOT to have health insurance. Fine, their tax rate is automatically raised an additional 5%. No car insurance - another 5%. Have a child out of wedlock - another 5% (which stays until the child is 18). By the same token, let those members of society that are causing the least burden on others be able to reduce their tax rates by their intelligent decisions. Tax the aberrant behavior and the sheeple will get the hint to wise up. Plus we will be putting a tax burden where it belongs - on the sheeple necessitating public outlays of money for their poor personal decisions. Since this raises taxes, will the libtards be for it?

religiouslib is right
Religiouslib correctly states the facts. Juries are much more apt to side with the doctors than with the patients. Seven studies comparing jury verdicts with insurance companies' analyses of the cases after having the cases reviewed by independent medical reviewers have shown that patients only win about fifty percent of trials that the insurance companies' reviewers determined to be indefensible. "The studies show that juries favor doctors even more than physician reviewers do. ..The consistency of (the studies') findings is extraordinary. Juries favor defendants." See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=929474# PaperDownload. A few days ago, a presentation was made to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons in Chicago discussing the impact of the medical malpractice legal environment on the number of neurosurgeons practicing in states. To the surprise of the doctors who did the study, so-called crisis states showed an increase in the numbers of neurosurgeons while non-crisis states showed a reduced number of neurosurgeons. See http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/539486/. As for California caps, obstetricians in Riverside County had malpractice premiums of $87,456 last year. In Minnesota, a state that has never had a cap on damages, obstetricians paid $20,626. Medical Liability Monitor, volume 32, number 10.

ReligiousLib, pay closer attention
...to details. You wrote "the author himself went to court and sued the dept. of energy for documents related to a personal issue. then appealed and lost."

The author is David A. Ridenour. The plaintiff in the suit you linked to is David E. Ridenour.

A few questions, please
"between 1991 and 2005, the total number of malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors declined 15.4 percent" Did the cost of malpractice insurance drop 15.4% also? And what about payments made on behalf of hospitals?

"1991 and 2005, the number of malpractice payments per 100,000 Americans dropped more than ten percent;" Did the cost of malpractice insurance drop over 10% also?

Paraphrased: "average payment for a medical malpractice verdict declined 8% between 1991 and 2005" Did the cost of malpractice insurance drop 8% also?

"patients 'rarely won damages at trial, prevailing in only 21 percent of verdicts'" I'll bet the Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies had legal expenses in 100% of those cases, including the 79% where they were found not liable for damages.


eastlake joe - Federal licensing? Nope
--
Not knowing enough to be more than dangerous, eastlake joe proposed making "... med licences nationwide" so that a physician who surrenders or loses his license in one state can't go to another to practice.

Not knowing how state boards swap information these days. Instead:


"In the United States, governments at every level impose many restrictions on voluntary interaction in the name of protecting consumers from poor-quality or unsafe products and services.... On occupational licensing, economic researchers find that the restrictions increase practitioner fees and incomes, reduce the quantity supplied, stunt innovation, delay treatment, discourage preventative care, and induce consumers to turn to unlawful, do-it-yourself, and often unsafe remedies. Also, there is very little evidence that licensing achieves its primary goal of raising the quality of lawful practice....

"Licensing can deter malfeasance because
malfeasance may result in revocation of the license, and revocation results in much lower incomes. This suggests that policy makers make the practice of medicine especially remunerative for the few by withholding the right to practice from the many....

"For occupational licensing, eliminating coercion might permit a system proposed long ago by Milton Friedman (1962) and espoused by many others (e.g., see Gross 1977), in which the government offers certification but does not require practitioners to have it."

-- Daniel B. Klein, *The Independent Review* (1998)


In other words, no more professional licensing of *ANY* kind. Not for doctors, not for nurses, pharmacists, radiation technicians, electricians, accountants, plumbers, beauticians - anybody.


--


goodday
you are right,
my mistake, i googled the name and didn't realize i had chosen a link to the other guy.

Tort Reform
The court suit problem needs some correction. But ...

1. Put tort caps on what can be paid for non-injury claims. (This was done in Texas and a number of other states.) This limits how much "pain and suffering" a person can get. In Texas this is limited to $200,000 only for doctors, if I remember correctly. It was getting up to $25 million or more before the reform. Lawyers hate it since it cuts their profits.

2. Require the loser to pay the winner's costs. This is still not the law. But if someone sues me for some stupid reason, I feel that he should pay my costs to defend myself. For instance, one person in Houston went on a weekend vacation, leaving Saturday morning and coming back Sunday evening. He has some tropical fish. A neighbor sued him for not feeding the fish while he was gone. It cost him over a $150,000 to defend himself. The accuser paid nothing. (It is normal for fish to not be fed one day a week to keep them healthy.) This would reduce frivolous suits by ninty percent.

Yet the lawyers get vast sums by these things. We need the reform.

Malpractice costs:
My wife worked for a doctor about twenty years ago. He was a surgeon. His malpractice insurance costs THEN was $10,000 per month! I can't imagine what it would be today. So I can see why the doctor charges so much. He has to cover those costs even if he does NOT get sued!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.