Ok, stpauler, if you’re going to cap awards, let’s cap premiums with the same law. After all, exorbitant premiums are the reason for high medical costs that get passed on to everyone. Or are you only interested in a law that enriches the insurance companies, without imposing any responsibility to reduce premiums?
The insurance companies are regulated by states as to how much they can charge for premiums. The main reason our company got out of the healthcare insurance was because we couldn’t raise premiums high enough to get that type of insurance to not only be profitable, but to not be in the red. (By putting a further cap on the premiums, you’re just going to be spreading the cost from the larger hospitals down to the smaller hospitals, someone’s gotta make up for the money lost if a company still decides to insure the larger ones).
As for smaller premiums, the propensity for large settlements for P&S will be dramatically reduced with this cap. The smaller the risk, the smaller the premiums.
Doctors also go to school for about 12 years, work long hours and deal with stressed out, sick people every day. I don’t begrudge doctors one penny they make. I also don’t see many doctors with flashy lifestyles, although most do live comfortably.
I don’t think any amount of money is enough if someone you love dies as a result of a medical mistake. I don’t think it is about money at all. If a Dr. is truly incompetent then he should be prevented from practicing. That is what I would be concerned about, not becoming a millionaire from the error. Prevent it from happening again, don’t shove money at the problem. (This is not about damages or cost of long term care due to a mistake, I think those costs should be covered and that is not what the cap is about). The problem is the huge settlements are hurting all doctors, not just the bad ones. It is beginning to have real consequences, especially in practices that are at high-risk for lawsuits, like OB’s. Id Dr.'s cannot afford premiums, what choice do they have?
Oh, really? Then why do insurance company executives, their spokesman and attorneys all go out of their way to deny that tort reform will cause rates to fall?
Show me one insurance industry representative who is willing to go on the record before any legislative body considering tort reform and promise that rates will go doing if awards are capped.
Let’s suppose that you are a 25 year-old accountant who becomes paralyzed from the waist down for life due to doctor negligence. What do you think is a fair amount of money to compensate you for losing the ability to walk; to run; to dance; to have sex; etc. for the rest of your life?
(Assume that insurance covers the cost of your medical care. Further, lost earnings are minimal since you can still do your desk job.)
Personally, I think that $4-5 million is about the right amount. $250k is way too low IMHO. But I’m curious what you think.
I can go on record and promise you that malpractice rates will go up sharply if reform isn’t enacted.
In round number, malpractice insurance companies are losing around $1.75 for every $1.00 of premium. The companies do also have some investment income, but not nearly enough to make up the difference. They are losing their shirts. That’s why the country’s leading malpractice insurer quit the business. Any company that wants to stay in the business needs a very big rate increase. Otherwise, they’ll simply go bankrupt.
A $250,000 cap on pain and suffering is projected to cut claims costs by around 25% to 30%. That wouldn’t be enough to end insurance company losses. It would just get the companies closer to break-even. They would still need rate increases, but less than they would need without the reform.
Did you look at the link I provided earlier? What about the man that had his penis cut off? Is it not worth more then $250,000.00?
I’d rather show facts than soundbites. The soundbites you gave were non-commital and far from definitive answers.
This is interesting:
Doctor’s sued in Tennessee
I think that that is demonstative of a highly litigious country or really bad healthcare in Tennessee.
It may well be worth more than $250,000. It may be worth more than $250 million. I wouldn’t voluntarily allow my penis to be cut off in exchange for any amount of money.
However, consider two points:
– over half the award will go to his lawyers, insurance company lawyers and for other legal expenses.
– Indirectly, YOU and I are the ones who will pay the award, via higher medical bills.
This is a good example. If this happened to me, no amount of money would be a ‘fair compensation.’ No amount will give me back what I have lost, so I find monetary amounts somewhat irrelevant ( and even condescending, in a way. It suggests that I am better off now after the accident, or should at least be satisfied because now I am a millionaire). Like I said, I would expect to be compensated for damages, medical bills, and future expenses due to his mistake, and I think $250,000 is a fair amount to receive in addition to those costs. I want the doctor to be punished, but I do not wish to punish all doctors for his mistake, I want the good and careful doctors to be able to continue to practice. This is for my own benefit as well as society in general, to make access to good doctors cheaper and easier.
I find any number to be rather arbitrary, actually. I have a hard time putting a price on that kind of life-changing event. Why $4 million in your case? Would you be willing to be paralyzed for that amount? If not, why did you choose that number?
It’s not like the doctor himself is paying that price, so it’s not even a punishment to him / her. The greater punishment would be to have his ability to practice revoked, which I would support if the events warranted ( and I assume already does happen in some cases).
I could also be biased, since to me $250,000 is a decent amount of money to begin with. I suppose if you make that in a year it might seem offensive to even suggest that amount for that kind of mistake, like ‘here’s $50 bucks, sorry about that.’ I don’t want to diminish the suffering of someone who has suffered because of medical malpractice, but neither do I wish to see good doctors unable to practice because of the fear of lawsuit. If lawsuits were few and far between I would not support a cap.
If money does not solve the problem, why does more money matter? I think it has become the only ‘fix’ we are used to.
It seems ridiculously low to me (and I think most people would agree). But there’s not much point in debating it, since as you say it’s somewhat arbitrary.
**
It’s not just about punishment – it’s about compensation too.
**
I suspect that the extent to which medical malpractice lawsuits are “out of control” is a matter of some controversy.
**
Look, you agree that people should be compensated to some extent for pain & suffering, no?
For reference, I’m a medical malpractice attorney in TX, they’re doing the $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, too. Although they have to pass a Constitutional amendment to make it constitutional (and even then I don’t think it is)
I defend doctors for a living. Very few doctors nowadays are rolling in money. Many, including a very outspoken client of ours are going out of business because they can’t afford insurance. Their reimbursment and collection rates suck. There are some doctors who still do very well, but these are usually subspecialties…
There are good things about tort reform and bad. For instance many of you are forgetting that the cap only applies to non-economic damages, so it’s likely that if you were that young guy who got quadded, you’d get a buttload (read millions) of economic damages and then the $250,000—also you can get up to $500,000 in Texas if you have a doctor defendant and a hospital defendant… A bad-baby case can still be in the high 7 figures with the cap so you’re not getting too screwed. And let’s face it, despite what people say about juries, they can be pretty savy…I foresee smart juries putting more down on the economic award to compensate…
But, take Isabelle’s example (although pretend there was no valid reason to have the penis cut-off). The damages are not going to be economic…not the big damages anyway…they are going to be non-economic and $250-$500 K is not going to be enough… there are cases out there where the cap is flat-out wrong.
In theory, the caps are supposed to lower the insurance premiums…that’s what the companies told their doctors to get them behind the bills. Problem being is I’m not sure there will be any effect…certainly not any immediate effect. It will take years before the doctors see any results and that’s if the insurance companies decide to take money out of their pockets and put it into the doctors 
If you say so, but it seems to me that a doctor’s office is like a small business and the reality is that many small businesses fail. It’s easy for a failed doctor to blaim malpractice etc. for such a failure, but I wonder if that’s an overstatement – or at least an oversimplification. Just speculating though.
**
I’m not sure what you mean by “quadded,” but it seems to me that the 25 year old accountant I described wouldn’t collect much in the way of economic damages, since he can still do his work from a wheelchair. But I don’t claim to be an expert in this area.
**
Agree.
stpauler quoted an article from the St. Petersburg Times earlier in the thread that highlighted the problems of the Florida Board of Medicine. Here it is again:
It seems to me that if the state wants to enact legislative changes, they should start at the root of the problem - with the body that allows doctors to practice. If the licensing requirements become more stringent or if complaints against doctors are investigated more thoroughly, I imagine malpractice suits would decrease.
Sure, you’ll still have some essentially frivolous litigation, but it’s at least a step in the right direction. If I lived in Florida, I would be extremely reluctant to give up any rights to collect damages (whether actual or for pain and suffering) from a group as poorly regulated as that (admittedly single) quote seems to indicate.
Luc
Re this: *by lucwarm{/i]
It’s not accurate for most doctors…insurance can run a doctor $75,000 a year…there are limited viable insurance companies tight now…several have gone bankrupt and many have just stopped writting.
What I meant re “quadded” is a quadraplegic…but I think you meant paraplegic or am I confused…it has been a long day. You get kinda jaded about this stuff when you see it on a day to day basis…
Using your example, I’m seeing (if a jury is favorable) several million just in economic damages…you get medical bills (even if they are written off or paid by an alternative source like insurance) which are in this type of case usually in the hudreds of thousands…then anticipated medical bills including psych and rehab…these may be in the million range if you’ve got a half-way decent economist/life care planner…then you’ve got plain old lost wages which are going to be a buttload…
Sure – if the money to pay for it comes from nowhere. But, economic reality is that the money ultimately comes from you.
Let’s say you are paying $200 per year to compensate people for pain and suffering, except that the injured patients only get $100 of it, while rich lawyers get the other $100. If there’s no reform, next year you will pay $150 to the injured patients and $150 to the rich lawyers. With reform you’ll pay $110 to each group.
This raises three questions:
– Why should you have to pay compensation for pain and suffering?
– Does the fact that half or so goes to lawyers affect how you feel?
– Is $150 per year a fair amount for you to pay?
Well, if we’re going to talk about California:
(from and admittedly biased site)
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php
We get the nice chart:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/assets/scans/sacbee_mm_chart.gif
Which shows that medical malpractice premiums fell after the enactment of Prop 103, which capped insurance rates.
I notice how many people like to cite California without mentioning Prop 103 as a possible cause for falling insurance rates. Why is that?
By this lop-sided logic, we should enact a law rolling back insurance premiums to 1970 levels. Otherwise, spiralling premiums will passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher medical costs. The only way award caps are fair is if you enact a premium rollback and cap at the same time. But leave it to the conservatives to push for big government and more laws to strangle the free market!
Well, our friend, December has covered most of the insurance industry’s talking points, but an inescapable fact remains:
When I make a mistake, professional or personal, I expect to make it right. I expect no less from my physician.
Try not. Do.
Complete and utter bullshit. Total. 100%. Lies.
No, the state sees who has a medical degree. End of state involvement.
Hospitals also fucking suck, as anybody who has spent any time whatsoever in one can readily attest.
Greed is good. Insurance companies suck. Bad doctors can go to hell.
“Vulture”= “person who has been screwed by a negligent physician.” There, is that clearer?
I’ve never asserted or defended a malpractice claim in my life, and am exceedingly unlikely to ever do so.
“Moderate”? “Moderate?!?” Dude, maybe your loved one’s life is worth a paltry $250K. Maybe less. Not mine, not my family’s, not my friend’s, not anyone, present company voluntarily excepted.
Goody. So you’re conceding that your boogyman is a phantasm?
Irrelevant. Justice doesn’t give a shit how much it would have cost a person wronged to take out an insurance policy.