Malpractice is a consumer issue

[Canceled2]

Wasting Billions, Doing Injustice

<snip>
The most promising proposal is to send malpractice suits to specialized health courts with expert judges and no juries.
Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009
by Stuart Taylor


Our medical-malpractice lawsuit system is too capricious and too clogged with costs and delays to do justice for malpractice victims or for wrongly sued doctors. It also does little to deter malpractice.

Worse, unless fundamentally reformed, malpractice law could greatly weaken efforts to control health care costs. The main reason, in the view of many experts, is that doctors' fear of unwarranted malpractice liability helps spur many billions of dollars in unnecessary "defensive medicine" costs.

Medical malpractice does happen. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors. This cries out for effective legal remedies. But malpractice law as we know it is not effective. It is, in too many ways, bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for the country.

• Bad for patients. Only 1.5 to 3 percent of all victims of medical negligence -- and about 17 percent of severely injured victims -- file claims, according to data, including a study cited by the Congressional Budget Office last year.

Many of these patients are apparently unaware that medical errors caused their injuries. But many others are probably deterred by the difficulty of finding lawyers -- who typically take only the most lucrative cases -- and the prospect of years of legal brawling with little chance of timely compensation and no assurance of ever being compensated.

A careful 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 73 percent of those who brought valid claims ended up winning compensation. That's not so bad. But it takes five years, on average, leaving injured plaintiffs without compensation when they need it most. Moreover, an exorbitant 54 percent of the money spent in the malpractice system goes to legal and administrative costs.

The system provides only weak incentives for doctors to avoid medical errors, because their insurance premiums depend less on their safety records than on what type of medical specialty they practice and where they practice it. <snip>

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wasting Billions, Doing Injustice

<snip>
The most promising proposal is to send malpractice suits to specialized health courts with expert judges and no juries.
Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009
by Stuart Taylor


Our medical-malpractice lawsuit system is too capricious and too clogged with costs and delays to do justice for malpractice victims or for wrongly sued doctors. It also does little to deter malpractice.

Worse, unless fundamentally reformed, malpractice law could greatly weaken efforts to control health care costs. The main reason, in the view of many experts, is that doctors' fear of unwarranted malpractice liability helps spur many billions of dollars in unnecessary "defensive medicine" costs.

Medical malpractice does happen. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors. This cries out for effective legal remedies. But malpractice law as we know it is not effective. It is, in too many ways, bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for the country.

• Bad for patients. Only 1.5 to 3 percent of all victims of medical negligence -- and about 17 percent of severely injured victims -- file claims, according to data, including a study cited by the Congressional Budget Office last year.

Many of these patients are apparently unaware that medical errors caused their injuries. But many others are probably deterred by the difficulty of finding lawyers -- who typically take only the most lucrative cases -- and the prospect of years of legal brawling with little chance of timely compensation and no assurance of ever being compensated.

A careful 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 73 percent of those who brought valid claims ended up winning compensation. That's not so bad. But it takes five years, on average, leaving injured plaintiffs without compensation when they need it most. Moreover, an exorbitant 54 percent of the money spent in the malpractice system goes to legal and administrative costs.

The system provides only weak incentives for doctors to avoid medical errors, because their insurance premiums depend less on their safety records than on what type of medical specialty they practice and where they practice it. <snip>

And how will you guarentee that these special courts won't be staffed by Chamber of Commerce appointees?

 

[Canceled2]

And how will you guarentee that these special courts won't be staffed by Chamber of Commerce appointees?

I think it is the best idea that has been offered to date Mott. Working out the details via regulations and policy is, I imagine, how you insure protections.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think it is the best idea that has been offered to date Mott. Working out the details via regulations and policy is, I imagine, how you insure protections.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Canceled2]

You didn't answer my question.

Why don't you just tell me what I am supposed to say. You asked me a question and I gave it a go.

 

[Jarod]

Wasting Billions, Doing Injustice

<snip>
The most promising proposal is to send malpractice suits to specialized health courts with expert judges and no juries.
Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009
by Stuart Taylor


Our medical-malpractice lawsuit system is too capricious and too clogged with costs and delays to do justice for malpractice victims or for wrongly sued doctors. It also does little to deter malpractice.

Worse, unless fundamentally reformed, malpractice law could greatly weaken efforts to control health care costs. The main reason, in the view of many experts, is that doctors' fear of unwarranted malpractice liability helps spur many billions of dollars in unnecessary "defensive medicine" costs.

Medical malpractice does happen. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors. This cries out for effective legal remedies. But malpractice law as we know it is not effective. It is, in too many ways, bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for the country.

• Bad for patients. Only 1.5 to 3 percent of all victims of medical negligence -- and about 17 percent of severely injured victims -- file claims, according to data, including a study cited by the Congressional Budget Office last year.

Many of these patients are apparently unaware that medical errors caused their injuries. But many others are probably deterred by the difficulty of finding lawyers -- who typically take only the most lucrative cases -- and the prospect of years of legal brawling with little chance of timely compensation and no assurance of ever being compensated.

A careful 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 73 percent of those who brought valid claims ended up winning compensation. That's not so bad. But it takes five years, on average, leaving injured plaintiffs without compensation when they need it most. Moreover, an exorbitant 54 percent of the money spent in the malpractice system goes to legal and administrative costs.

The system provides only weak incentives for doctors to avoid medical errors, because their insurance premiums depend less on their safety records than on what type of medical specialty they practice and where they practice it. <snip>

Ya, great idea let the doctors decide...

Next we should have all legal malpractice cases decided by lawyers.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why don't you just tell me what I am supposed to say. You asked me a question and I gave it a go.

No, you gave me some vague response about working out regulations.

That's the problem with hair brained schemes like these. The devil is in the details and before I go for something like this I need to know specifically, how will my rights and the public safety be protected in this measure and not eroded by staffing these courts with pro-business ideologues?

 

[Canceled2]

No, you gave me some vague response about working out regulations.

That's the problem with hair brained schemes like these. The devil is in the details and before I go for something like this I need to know specifically, how will my rights and the public safety be protected in this measure and not eroded by staffing these courts with pro-business ideologues?

Hair brained schemes??? Its an idea. The fact that any new policy would have to be created with regulations is not hair brained. This article touched on the real problem with malpractice and gave mention to an idea!

Stop waxing hysterical. A jdge hearing a malprctice case on merit as opposed to emotion is a GOOD thing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Wasting Billions, Doing Injustice

<snip>
The most promising proposal is to send malpractice suits to specialized health courts with expert judges and no juries.
Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009
by Stuart Taylor


Our medical-malpractice lawsuit system is too capricious and too clogged with costs and delays to do justice for malpractice victims or for wrongly sued doctors. It also does little to deter malpractice.

Worse, unless fundamentally reformed, malpractice law could greatly weaken efforts to control health care costs. The main reason, in the view of many experts, is that doctors' fear of unwarranted malpractice liability helps spur many billions of dollars in unnecessary "defensive medicine" costs.

Medical malpractice does happen. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors. This cries out for effective legal remedies. But malpractice law as we know it is not effective. It is, in too many ways, bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for the country.

• Bad for patients. Only 1.5 to 3 percent of all victims of medical negligence -- and about 17 percent of severely injured victims -- file claims, according to data, including a study cited by the Congressional Budget Office last year.

Many of these patients are apparently unaware that medical errors caused their injuries. But many others are probably deterred by the difficulty of finding lawyers -- who typically take only the most lucrative cases -- and the prospect of years of legal brawling with little chance of timely compensation and no assurance of ever being compensated.

A careful 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 73 percent of those who brought valid claims ended up winning compensation. That's not so bad. But it takes five years, on average, leaving injured plaintiffs without compensation when they need it most. Moreover, an exorbitant 54 percent of the money spent in the malpractice system goes to legal and administrative costs.

The system provides only weak incentives for doctors to avoid medical errors, because their insurance premiums depend less on their safety records than on what type of medical specialty they practice and where they practice it. <snip>

Malpractice does raise prices, but by putting such a high penalty on error, our high malpractice costs do discourage such error. We can cap the damages, but it would result in more deaths.

This does not mean that malpractice is wholly beneficial. It may make more sense life-wise to cap malpractice costs and put the money directly into other uses. But we'd have to do an analysis to figure out the effects one way or the other, not simply guesstimate in our heads.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Having the awards decided by judges rather than jurors would probably greatly reduce the amount of "jackpot justice". I don't think it would be popular though.

 

[Canceled2]

Malpractice does raise prices, but by putting such a high penalty on error, our high malpractice costs do discourage such error. We can cap the damages, but it would result in more deaths.

This does not mean that malpractice is wholly beneficial. It may make more sense life-wise to cap malpractice costs and put the money directly into other uses. But we'd have to do an analysis to figure out the effects one way or the other, not simply guesstimate in our heads.

Malpractice has not "saved lives". It has effectively increased costs in a number of ways. I liked the idea of capping attorney profits as opposed to capping damages for victims.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hair brained schemes??? Its an idea. The fact that any new policy would have to be created with regulations is not hair brained. This article touched on the real problem with malpractice and gave mention to an idea!

Stop waxing hysterical. A jdge hearing a malprctice case on merit as opposed to emotion is a GOOD thing.

Again, you evaded the question. How would you assure that my rights and the public safety would be protected from pro business ideologues?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Malpractice does raise prices, but by putting such a high penalty on error, our high malpractice costs do discourage such error. We can cap the damages, but it would result in more deaths.

This does not mean that malpractice is wholly beneficial. It may make more sense life-wise to cap malpractice costs and put the money directly into other uses. But we'd have to do an analysis to figure out the effects one way or the other, not simply guesstimate in our heads.

Keep in mind that malpractice awards and the need for tort reform is just a minute percentage of the over all costs in health care. It's not high on the priority list and we don't want to toss out the baby with the bath water and lose fundamental rights as a knee jerk reaction to the feelings of some conservatives in the chamber of commerce who have a hard on for trial lawyers.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Malpractice has not "saved lives". It has effectively increased costs in a number of ways. I liked the idea of capping attorney profits as opposed to capping damages for victims.

It puts a very high cost price on failure. Are you literally going to say that that does nothing to prevent said failure?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Keep in mind that malpractice awards and the need for tort reform is just a minute percentage of the over all costs in health care. It's not high on the priority list and we don't want to toss out the baby with the bath water and lose fundamental rights as a knee jerk reaction to the feelings of some conservatives in the chamber of commerce who have a hard on for trial lawyers.

This is the problem I have with modern conservative demagoguery. They promote issues that honestly don't make a large difference one way or the other to the center stage for no other reason than that they think they can get their base riled up over it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Malpractice has not "saved lives". It has effectively increased costs in a number of ways. I liked the idea of capping attorney profits as opposed to capping damages for victims.

So you don't want to prevent damages caps, you just want to prevent victims of malpractice from being able to hire competent attorneys to prosecute their claims. Nice.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Meh, it may make sense to cap attorney profits both ways. That way a good attorney can't seize on a case and get a million times more than what the case is worth, and both parties attorneys will probably be on the same level of competence (which evens the playing field).

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Meh, it may make sense to cap attorney profits both ways. That way a good attorney can't seize on a case and get a million times more than what the case is worth, and both parties attorneys will probably be on the same level of competence (which evens the playing field).

Let me ask you a rhetorical question. If you or someone you cared for was seriously injured due to someone (or organizations) negligence would you be worried about a level playing field? When you go into a civil court the deck is all ready stacked in favor of the defendent. Why would you want to tie the paintiffs atty further?

 

[cawacko]

So you don't want to prevent damages caps, you just want to prevent victims of malpractice from being able to hire competent attorneys to prosecute their claims. Nice.

Wouldn't that same argument work for those who want to cap CEO and upper management earnings in the private sector?

 

[Bonestorm]

Wouldn't that same argument work for those who want to cap CEO and upper management earnings in the private sector?

No.