Medical malpractice frivolous lawsuits

[Douglas]

This taken from a "right" leaning website.

The current medical malpractice system is increasing the cost of health care for all Americans - representing more than $60 billion in added health care costs each year.

Is this myth or reality??

[Pangloss]

I don't know how accurate the number is, but the concept doesn't surprise me at all.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Don't you just hate this sort of thing. They stuff up get punished then pass the penalty back onto the people who were wronged in the first place. I think there should be some sort of monopoly comission to set the prices.

[blike]

Is this myth or reality??

Well, the democrats would like you to believe that malpractice is not a significant contributor to rising healthcare costs. However, talk to any doctor and he'll tell you the reason healthcare costs are rising is because doctors can't afford to pay their malpractice premiums, which are elevated because of the litigous society in which we live. I just applied to medical school this year, and I was told several times by several physicians to pursue something other than medicine. Both schools I interviewed at asked me why I wanted to become a physician when I would undoubtedly be named in a frivolous suit more than once.

 

The lawsuit crisis is real, and it's hurting doctors and patients alike. Doctors can't afford to practice, and they can't practice like they were trained to. Take for example an ER doctor I talked to the other day. He ordered a test that he would never have ordered 20 years ago, but because he had lawyers breathing down his neck on this patient, he ordered the test. $600 wasted on what any physician would have told you was unnecessary at that stage. It's horrible. In florida we've got obstetricians and gynocologists respecializing because they can't afford to practice. In parts north Texas you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who will deliver your baby. Now we've got this amendmant here in florida that will probably pass which states that a physician loses his license to practice in florida after three lawsuits.

 

What does that mean? Well, aside from all of the surgeons packing up and applying for licenses in other states, it means that doctors will no longer try and defend themselves in court [because three strikes you're out] and will settle. Malpractice premiums are expected to rise significantly, which means your doctor will be charging more so he can break even for the year.

 

Don't you just hate this sort of thing. They stuff up get punished then pass the penalty back onto the people who were wronged in the first place. I think there should be some sort of monopoly comission to set the prices.

There is. It's called your HMO, PPO, etc. Doctors don't set their prices. Furthermore, we're talking about frivolous lawsuits, i.e. lawsuits that should never make it to court. The simple fact that it makes it to court is costing malpractice insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars in defending doctors a year.

 

I don't think you get it. The notion that "only bad doctors get sued" is ridiculous. If you happen to be on the case where another doctor messed up, guess who gets named in the suit. There are obstetricians being sued over bad outcomes. The american people have had it beat into their head by trial lawyers that bad outcome = bad doctor. Just ask John Edwards. He sued an obstetrician in NC (I believe that was the state) using junk science. The jury felt bad and awarded money. Any other doctor would have done the same thing. This is happening all over the united states. There was a time when a surgeon could be insured for 25k a year. Now it's costing florida surgeons over $80,000 a year to be insured! Considering the average surgeon's income is around $200,000, 49% of which gets taken out for taxes, many doctors are struggling to break even these days!

[RICHARDBATTY]

See your point. Maybe some thing needs to be done about the run away law suite mentality. We have a similar problem with people abusing rights given to protect them so I suppose everyones in the same boat to some extent.

[Douglas]

Well, the democrats would like you to believe that malpractice is not a significant contributor to rising healthcare costs. However, talk to any doctor and he'll tell you the reason healthcare costs are rising is because doctors can't afford to pay their malpractice premiums, which are elevated because of the litigous society in which we live. !

Good dissertation Blike, naturally, I agree with you.

 

You're right, it's not only the litigation and the exorbitant malpractise insurance, but perhaps more important is the "ass cover" of superfluous diagnostics.

 

Yet Kerry says the costs are in the noise.

[blike]

Indeed. I didn't really mean to attack democrats in the post, but it seems the party is downplaying the seriousness of the malpractice issue. Nevertheless, there are other issues contributing to the rise of healthcare costs, but malpractice contributes a more than some might think. I'd like to know whether the impact malpractice has on healthcare costs that John Kerry cited included secondary and tertiary effects of malpractice. For example, did they only count the amount awarded anually in settlements and verdicts? Or did they include things like the cost of defending doctors from frivolous suits, costs hospitals incur from defending themselves, or factors such as costs of tests and procedures which are done only as a formality to document in case of litigation? I'm not accusing him of intentionally distoring facts (we all know both parties do this), but I'd like to know the process by which he arrived as his figure.

 

Even more important than monitary considerations is the impact this has on the quality of healthcare. Doctors can't really practice medicine anymore, they practice "cover-your-rear" medicine, as you mentioned. Another impact high litigation has is that many doctors are not willing to research and try new procedures in the United States. For example, a patient in a hospital recently had a surgical incision that just would not heal. There are biosynthetic materials used in the burn unit that help burn patient's wounds heal better. The patient asked the doctor why the material wouldn't work on an incision. The doctor and surgeon could see absolutely no reason why they could not be used, and in-fact, thought it was a good idea. Nonetheless, neither were willing to try.

 

There is a fine balance between regulating advancements in medicine to protect the patient and over-regulating advancements to the point where no one will try anything new. The scale has been tilted towards the latter because of litigation rates. It's a fine balance that must be struck, but currently I think it leans too far toward the latter.

[john5746]

I think caps make sense - especially caps on lawyers %. But, 27 states already have some type of caps and the Congressional Budget Office found no difference in medical spending between these states and the other 23. Still, I think it makes it harder on doctors, especially in Florida, where they are working on many old people with money.

 

I don't think it will save nearly as much as Bush says. Drug companies, insurance companies, etc need some competition. They are like the Big three autos before Japan made them clean up their act.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

[blike]

I don't know if caps on lawyers fees are intended to directly combat malpractice costs. All capping lawyer fees would probably do is narrow down 10 lawyers fighting for a client to 1 or 2. It seems like there's always someone willing to do it.

[Diedra Moose]

It's a hard call all the way around...

The thing with award and lawyer caps is that the less money that is involved, the less likely a lawyer will take the case in the first case. That means NO punitive damages in cases of REAL malpractice. Caps would hurt people on a lower socioeconomic strata since they would not be able to entice these lawyers to take their cases like richer people might be able to. If their is no incentive, there is no lawyer; if their is no lawyer, there is no case

[Diedra Moose]

The other argument made in favor of lawyer caps is that frivolous lawsuits are causing our health costs to go up. In reality, lawsuits only encompass 2% of the higher costs...

[blike]

The thing with award and lawyer caps is that the less money that is involved, the less likely a lawyer will take the case in the first case. That means NO punitive damages in cases of REAL malpractice.

Indeed. I think it will require some responsibility on the part of lawyers. Perhaps the governing body for US lawyers should establish some sort of guidelines to help lawyers.

 

Another alternative is using a 3rd party mediating system which independently decides if the case merit's a court appearance.

[Diedra Moose]

Another alternative is using a 3rd party mediating system which independently decides if the case merit's a court appearance.

 

i think that is a great idea! I jsut wish that someone (other than ourselves), preferably someone in a postions of power, would honor that sense of justice and do something about it.

[JohnB]

We have a similar problem in Oz. One part of the equation that is never mentioned is this. "How many incompetent Doctors are still practicing?"

 

Do you get many struck off for incompetence? Down here they can be bloody drug addicts and still be allowed to practice.

 

A final thought, "What do you call the person who graduates Medical College with the lowest possible pass mark?"

 

Doctor.

 

Does that give you confidence?

[blike]

Do you get many struck off for incompetence?

Yes. The AMA and the AOA (governing bodies of both insititutions) revoke licenses of doctors who demonstrate gross incompetence.

 

A final thought, "What do you call the person who graduates Medical College with the lowest possible pass mark?"

 

Doctor.

 

Does that give you confidence?

Yes. In order to graduate you have to pass two sets of board examinations, both of which are known to rip new holes in even the smartest of people. Anyone who can pass medical boards is clearly competent, at least at the time of taking them.

[Mad Mardigan]

Blike, John Edwards is well known millionare of NC because of his ambulance chasing here. I wonder if him being the VP would help health care cost?

[JohnB]

Blike, you must be in a better position than we are. I was serious about the drug addict bit.

 

It is almost impossible to get struck off down here. Even if you are, it doesn't really count if you move interstate.

 

The point was made some time ago down here during a debate on Doctor's Insurance that about 8% of Doctors are responsible for some 80% of the litigation cases. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. The point was raised and then studiously ignored.

 

To be fair, it is certainly possible that the 8% were involved in areas where people are more likely to sue them.

 

Also, by the same token, how many people die each year in the US because of "Medical Mistakes"?

 

You have to feel sorry for Doctors and Airline Pilots, one mistake somebody dies. The stress must be horrendous.

[Aardvark]

From private conversations with surgeons, i know that in the UK some patients are told their case is inoperable and are left to die where even 5 years ago surgery would have been attempted.

 

Surgeons are simply not undertaking high risk surgery for fear of litigation.

 

The result is that people die. The compensation culture is killing people.

[Douglas]

From private conversations with surgeons' date=' i know that in the UK some patients are told their case is inoperable and are left to die where even 5 years ago surgery would have been attempted.

 

Surgeons are simply not undertaking high risk surgery for fear of litigation.

 

The result is that people die. The compensation culture is killing people.[/quote']

Is medical malpractice litigation in the U.K. the same as it is here? I.E. They sue for 10s of millions.

[Aardvark]

We are a bit behind the USA in litigation stakes, the sums of money tend to be hundreds of thousands rather than tens of millions.

 

But the real kicker is that any doctor or surgeon who has an accusation made is automatically suspended whilst the matter is investigated. This can take 4 years. By which time even if cleared the doctor has to undertake retraining, his career is blighted and self confidence badly knocked.

 

Unfortunately the GMC also seems to operate from a presumption of guilt so any doctor, even if innocent and competent faces complete ruin.

[Pangloss]

Just as an aside, Florida passed an amendment yesterday which limits lawyers to 10% of damage awards, plus fees. This will hopefully stop those ridiculous 40% contingency cases. Lawyers can still make an *ssload of money on these cases, and the bigger award the more they make, so I think it's fair. If they don't like it, they can go into another line of work.

[Douglas]

We are a bit behind the USA in litigation stakes' date=' the sums of money tend to be hundreds of thousands rather than tens of millions.

 

But the real kicker is that any doctor or surgeon who has an accusation made is automatically suspended whilst the matter is investigated. This can take 4 years. By which time even if cleared the doctor has to undertake retraining, his career is blighted and self confidence badly knocked.

 

Unfortunately the GMC also seems to operate from a presumption of guilt so any doctor, even if innocent and competent faces complete ruin.[/quote']

It sounds a little severe. Seems like one disgruntled patient can ruin the career of a doctor.

You'd think they'd take a meticulous look at the grievance to determine the validity of the charge, then go from there.

[blike]

The problem with a 3rd party system to determine the validity of a charge is who will sit on the committee. To be honest, physicians are best suited to judge whether or not another physician acted properly. That's one of the reason malpractice suits are so easily won in the US. Whichever side can appeal to the jury of nonphysicians better usually wins the case. The defense has to be able to make the jury understand what happened, what went wrong, and that it wasn't the doctors fault something went wrong. Often times these are very complicated medical cases which are very difficult to explain all the dynamics to a nonmedical person. All the prosecution has to do is appeal to the emotions of the jury.

 

However, there is always the argument that a jury of physicians would be inherently biased.

[Aardvark]

You'd think so Douglas, but no.

 

The power of emotional blackmail is enormous. Who wants to tell the grieving parent or terminally ill pensioner that they are wrong and that sometimes no one is to blame.

[Glider]

Unfortunately, the whole issue is being replicated in the UK. The population is becoming more litigious and medical insurance is increasing hugely.

 

I think I may have said this in another thread, but the the problem is being compounded by the encouragement (by the government) of unrealistic expectations in the public. Having said that, the government are not entirely to blame. They say "We want to reduce the waiting time until patients are treated". The public hears "We want to reduce the waiting time until patients are cured".

 

People seem unable to realise that medicine is not an exact science and cures are not guaranteed. When tratments fail (as, occasionally, they will. That's just a fact of life), they get angry; it must be someones' fault! It all goes downhill from there.