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
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Fred Thompson :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Federalist Approach to Malpractice Abuse
by Fred Thompson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Out-of-control medical malpractice lawsuits have been a problem in many parts of the country for a long time. Malpractice insurance costs can be driven so high, that doctors and insurance companies flee to more reasonable business climates. With too few doctors, it’s the patients who suffer the most.

In the past, those who want to solve this problem have tended to ignore our Federalist tradition. They've driven right past their state houses to their airports and flown to Washington to ask for national legal remedies. Fortunately, now we're seeing that states can take effective action themselves.

Only a few years ago, Texas was losing doctors fast. Rising malpractice insurance rates were fueling what analysts called a crisis. In some parts of the state, emergency wards were closing and residents were facing long trips for even basic medical care. The doctors who were most likely to leave the state were those hit hardest by malpractice insurance premiums -- the "high risk" specialists such as neurosurgeons, cardiologists and obstetricians.

Then, in 2003, Texas passed Prop 12, capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $750,000. $250,000 of that applied to physicians. There were no limits put on damages for medical expenses or economic expenses such as past and future lost income.

At the time, there were only four insurance companies left in Texas willing to cover doctors, and they were scheduling rate increases. Now 30 insurers are doing business in the Lone Star State and others are moving into the market. Rates have fallen on an average of more than 20 percent. Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50 percent,

So many doctors have now requested Texas medical licenses that thousands are backlogged and an emergency appropriations was passed to help the Texas Medical Board speed up their processing. Now, other states are considering similar legislation to stop the loss of their own doctors to Texas. I consider this a small but important victory for the principles of Federalism.

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

Fred Thompson has been a lawyer, actor and United States Senator. He writes exclusive analysis and commentary for Townhall Magazine.

Be the first to read Fred Thompson’s column.
Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today

Are medical malpractice caps good?
Is Mr. Thompson correct that medical malpractice litigation is a problem? Are Texans better off because of the legislation limiting noneconomic damages to $250,000? I think not.
Since the cap on damages came into effect, the number of injured people who are able to file suit has shrunk drastically. According to a June 17, 2007, article in The Dallas Morning News ("Are Texas' malpractice damage limits healthy?"), the number of medical malpractice suits filed in Dallas County dropped from 1,108 in 2003 to 142 in 2004. A number of the people who have commented on Mr. Thompson's article think that limiting the rights of people to be compensated for their injuries is a good thing. What would one of those people think if he or she were in an automobile accident and had neck pain. The emergency room doctor did not think the expense of doing a CT scan of the neck was warranted and sent the patient home. The undiagnosed and unstable fracture then causes quadriplegia because it had not been diagnosed and treated at the hospital. Does your writer, the totally innocent victim of the doctor's negligence in this example, then think everything is fine? No claim should be made when the person has no bowel or bladder control for the rest of his or her life, is unable to use his or her extremities, needs help breathing, and is totally dependent upon others for doing anything? What if this will continue for another 40 years? Does your reader think that $250,000 will fairly compensate him? What if the person was unemployed at the time of the malpractice so that there will not be a wage loss claim to pursue? Why would a lawyer be willing to take that case, which would take hundreds of hours of time and tens of thousands of dollars to pursue, with a total possible recovery of $250,000?
The Dallas newspaper article confirmed what two writers correctly pointed out, that insurance premiums have not been reduced as a result of depriving people of their right to receive fair compensation for their injuries. Although the people of Texas had been promised a lowering of their health insurance premiums, that did not happen.
How were things better before the caps were implemented? As a lawyer who used to defend doctors in malpractice cases said in the Dallas article, without the suits, doctors and hospitals have little incentive to improve.
The seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury in a civil case. The Texas law has effectively deprived many Texans of that basic right.
The issue is whether doctors and hospitals should have to accept responsibility for injuries their negligence has caused, or whether they should be given a pass so that the injured person becomes a ward of the state, paid for by tax dollars.

Federalism and Fred
Mr. Thompson already had the advantage of a plain-spoken Southern style combined with a tough guy image, the result as much of his acting roles as anything he has done in the Senate. Then he was able to take Paul Harvey's coveted radio spot. Now he has a columnists role here on Townhall.com. He has a very public pulpit from which to articulate his beliefs. Indeed in most elections I would consider voting for him, if for no other reason that his desire to move back to a more Federalist system.

But this election is unusual. Please read this speech below which was given back in June 2003 (i.e. not in the heat of a Presidential election)

"...the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation."

If that sounds good to you, and if Federalism is truly an important principle to you, there is no better candidate out there than that annoying thorn in every pseudo-conservative's side...

http://sosipater.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ron-paul-on-constitutional-federalism-and-abortion/

Peace be with you all.
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.