Under the Bush plan for tort reform, Nicole DeHuff’s family could only collect medical expenses plus $250,000.
There are real cases of malpractice that will only be prevented by large awards that the hospital cannot ignore and write off as a cost of doing business.
The Bush plan guarantees that more people will die without any significant consequences for those whose negligence cause the death.
I know nothing of Bush’s proposal, and being Canadian, don’t care enough to educate myself. Perhaps the debate should be: Is some sort of reform needed? Does Bush’s meet the needs. If not, what would?
Wow! It’s a darn good thing it wasn’t in place yet – that poor woman might have died!
Your cite, tragic as it is, doesn’t even come close to demonstrating your thesis, e.g. that Bush’s Tort Reform will kill people. Unless you’re arguing that an award in excess of $250K will bring her back?
No, she’s dead. Unfortunately, under the Bush plan the consequences of the negligence that caused her death will not be severe enough to effect change. Ergo, more people will die due to negligence. Think of large malpractice awards as quality control; without it, health care providers have no reason to change negligent practices that cost lives. Hence, the Bush plan will result in more lives lost. Get it?
I have no idea if this is actually relevant, but California has had a $250,000 cap on nonmonetary damages since 1975. This may be a factor in Fear Itself’s favor, arguing that the hospital in California could afford to be negligent because there was a limit to the damage. It might be an argument against Fear Itself’s argument because Bush’s plan should have no impact on the hospital in which this occured. Bush’s plan is apparently based on California’s model, whicch I consider a fairly bad thing, in that the $250,000 limit in California ought to have been indexed for inflation, but that’s something of an aside. I’m really just presenting the bit about California having a cap as information.
Maryland also has a similar cap. Can any one prove that in such states as California and Maryland that more people die because of it than in large award states? If so, they you may have a point…especially considering this is the model Bush appears to be using. If not…well, I think this would go a long way to shooting down this OP.
-XT
So let’s see if I understand your reasoning. A doctor makes a misdiagnosis (and I don’t think it’s hard to miss pneumonia in a young, generally healthy person), the patient dies, and it takes a > $250K penalty to make them feel * bad * about it?
And by extension, without the threat of multimillion dollar law suits hospitals and doctors would simply let some percentage of patients die because…well, I’m unsure, but perhaps because they are evil? ‘The price of doing business’ and all that. Never mind that if hospitals REALLY started letting more people die (because it would be cheaper to pay $250k than several million) people would go somewhere else for medical treatment.
The REAL ‘price of doing business’ we all pay is higher medical bills because of all the law suits (and higher drug costs and practically no US drug companies left who do serious R&D for new drugs, not to mention a process that takes years to get a drug certified for the market)…and IMO THAT kills more people than setting a limit on what you can sue for.
-XT
That has got to be one of the all-time great GD posts for the sheer impact of its brevity, let alone its cleverness and startling humor. In fewer than twenty words, the writer has shot down the broad assertion made in the OP.
There sure are an awful lot of ‘if’s’ in that post; as soon as you have some cites for your conjectures, get back to us. In the mean time, here is data supporting my OP (PDF):
I’m sure the doctor feels terrible, but the hospital is a corporation that views it as a cost of doing business. The only way to make the hospital begin to care about the consequences of their policies is to make their mistakes very, very expensive.
Because if doctors had to cough up more than a paltry $250,000.00 + medical expenses per mistake, they would obviously make less mistakes. Crippling financial penalties will teach the hateful bastards to be infallible or else!
I think the quality-control aspect has less to do with efforts to change any individual doctor’s behavior, but rather involves making it difficult or impossible for negligent doctors to stay in practice. The assumption, I think, is that doctors, and the institutions they work for, try their best to do right by the patients, but for some their best isn’t good enough. Stiff penalties simply drive the sub-standard out of business, at least in theory.
I personally agree that many lawsuits are frivolous, and the deep pockets of the well-heeled (or, at least, well-insured) make an all-too-tempting target for the litigators, who are apparently quite driven to be even more well-heeled. As it stands, it’s a system in which the only winners are the lawyers and the guys who work with actuarial tables.
However, it seems to me that enforcing these caps ought to do little to improve patient safety, as they logically must make it easier for substandard care-givers to survive their mistakes, while no such assurance of overall cost-controls apparently exist. I would greatly favor enhanced jurisprudence, such that the penalties are kept reasonably commensurate with the abuses and infractions. Unfortunately, the behavior of juries throws a likely insurmountable hurdle in front of any such attempts at progress, though I suppose there’s a remote possiblility that laws could be better crafted to provide clearer guidlines and constraints to control juries’ irrational sympathies and largesse.
I don’t think much of the tort reform proposals because I don’t believe that GW has good ideas. I cite his record from birth up to yesterday in support of that.
That being said I don’t think it will kill more people. The cost of lawsuits because of sloppy quality assurance is merely part of the cost of doing business and is added to the cost of the product. As long as all the providers of the product or service operate on that principle there is no competivie reason to improve quality in order to avoid costs.
I’ll cite two instances. Ford Motor Company executives decided that settling lawsuits over the Pinto fuel tank was cheaper than redesign to eliminate the defect. Chevrolet executives ditto for their side impact collision problem.
The OP’s thesis seems to be that implementing Bush’s tort reform plan will lead inexorably to higher mortality rates among patients as the medical industry will, in essence, be given carte blanche. The OP posits that the only way to force hospitals to vigilantly monitor medical care given to patients is to threaten the industry with the big stick of potentially massive med/mal judgments.
If this thesis were true, we would expect to see both higher mortality rates in the 23 states that have not already implemented similar reforms, and better health care in the 27 states that have. Evidence supporting this doesn’t seem to be an element of the public discussion about the tort reform plan, which makes me suspect that the plan is neither the panacea that its proponents make it out to be, nor is it the beginning of the slippery slope to disaster. Anyone with actual facts should feel free to chime in.
But the bigger issues with the plan, it seems, is that it disincentivizes trial lawyers to take on med/mal cases. If there is a cap on the non-economic damages, that limits the amount that a trial lawyer could earn in contingency fees. Given that there doesn’t seem to be evidence to support either sides’ arguments about the plan, doesn’t this just seem to be another instance in which an administration is taking lukewarm action on behalf of its supporters?
In other words, this is all sound and fury.
I’ve looked in every dictionary I have and can’t find “competivie” in any of them. It must not be a word in the English language. I suppose it should be “competitive.”
There sure are an awful lot of ‘may’s’ in that post; as soon as you have some cites for your conjectures, get back to us. 
Seriously, this ‘may’ support your claim, but I’d need to see the numbers to back it up…i.e. there are several states that already put such caps on lawsuits. Is there any proof that those states are inherently more dangerous to have medical care in that states that don’t set any limit at all? Its really no up to ME to prove this btw…its up to YOU to prove it, as its your assertion that Bush’s reforms will kill people, and by extension people are already being killed in states with caps already in place.
-XT
Have you read through that site of yours? It seems to be making exactly the opposite point you are trying to make. The effect on “quality of care” mentioned in the quote you pulled from it seems to be a negative effect. That is, unfettered malpractice lawsuits seem to have an impact on quality of care, allright, a negative one.
For isntance, in the concluding paragraph of the section from which you pulled your quote (which section seemed to be a summary of available literature) I found this:
What they are suggesting is that unfettered malpracitce systems increase the usage of defensive medicine. That is what they were talking about when they said it as you quoted “malpractice liability may also exert influence on quality of care.”.
Except that, as has been pointed out, the* same plan is already in place in California*, and Bush just wants to take it national. I would argue that she was killed by negligence that was condoned because malpractice suits in California are suppressed.
But never let the facts get in your way of lowering the bar for cleverness and humor, Lib.