Resources

"Docs4PatientCare.org is a politically neutral grassroots coalition of physicians.  Use of any politically partisan terms does not reflect the position of Docs4PatientCare.org.  We do encourage our speakers to express how they feel and we post articles based on their informative content only.  Any politically partisan language used does not reflect the group as a whole.  Specific party or political allegiances and opposition are not our intent.  The goal of D4PC is only to advocate for effective and responsible health care reform."

Insincere Promise by WH to Address Medical Liability Crisis

Tuesday, December 01, 2009



Medical Liability Land Mine

With big promises of reform and recognition of a medical liability crisis from President Obama and other congressional leaders, the House health care reform bill that passed earlier this month was, at best, smoke and mirrors and, at worst, a medical liability land mine.

A Wall Street Journal editorial this month details the stealthy language disguised to look like medical liability reform. Buried in the House bill was a provision that provides "incentive payments" to states that develop alternative medical liability laws, but - here's the landmine - a state only qualifies if its law does NOT limit attorneys' fees or place limits on non-economic damages.

Yes, that's right. States are being discouraged from enacting the one reform that has a proven track record of success at reigning in medical lawsuit abuse and preserving patient access to care. And the deep pockets of politically powerful personal injury lawyers, who often take more than 50% of a patient's award or settlement, are protected.

To read more about the "tort bomb" that was buried in health care reform legislation, click here.

. . . And a Buried Tort Bomb

The Wall Street Journal
November 12, 2009

In his September address to Congress, President Obama made a nod to bipartisanship by acknowledging that excessive litigation "may be" contributing to rising health costs, and he proposed state "demonstration projects" to test medical tort reform. This wasn't much of a concession, but it apparently was still too much for House Democrats, who are using their bill to subvert reform that is already on the books in many states.

Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

Holy Bill Lerach.

Huge contingency fees and damage awards are the mother's milk of frivolous lawsuits. That's why 30 states have adopted caps on awards as the core of their reform, with huge success. Texas imposed malpractice caps in 2003, and the state has been rewarded with fewer lawsuits, a 50% drop in malpractice premiums, and a flood of new doctors. The House bill is intended to discourage other states from doing the same.

The Pelosi bill also provides these incentives only if states adopt watered-down alternatives to existing malpractice caps. Those alternatives include certificate-of-merit rules, which in theory require lawyers to get medical proof before suing but in practice mean that lawyers recruit and finance "expert" witnesses.

States could also provide "early offer" rules, which are supposed to encourage fair settlement of legitimate claims. But as organizations like the Manhattan Institute have noted, those offers only work if combined with restrictions on lawyer fees and damage awards that reduce the incentive to go for the jackpot judgment.

The Senate bill avoids tort reform entirely, notwithstanding Mr. Obama's showy pledge before a national TV audience.

Never mind that reducing medical lawsuits is a rare reform provision that really would reduce health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the savings at $54 billion over a decade. Consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin has suggested the direct cost of medical tort litigation is more like $30 billion annually. PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits.

The hidden Pelosi tort bomb is one more example of the stealth radicalism that defines ObamaCare. If it passes in anything like its current form, we are going to be cleaning up the mess for decades to come.

  
Go Back

Recent Posts

Tags

Archive