Limit substandard care, not innocent victims damages

In Massachusetts in the last 10 years, "one-fourth of 1 percent of all the doctors — 98 of the 37,369 doctors — accounted for more than 13 percent of all the malpractice payments, $134 million of the $1 billion in total payments," according to Nancy Achin Audesse, executive director of the board that oversees medical professionals there.

It makes sense that regulating doctors rather than lawyers is the remedy for the medical malpractice crisis. Limiting substandard medicine benefits everyone, while placing ceilings on lawsuit damages would potentially deny justice to the families of patients who have been permanently injured by negligent or incompetent medical professionals.

WHO WANTS TO BE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE MILLIONAIRE?

Ted Rall asks this question and answers it with facts to back up his argument that "The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that the costs associated with malpractice--buying insurance and paying out damage awards--amounts to less than two percent of America's skyrocketing healthcare expenses. "Even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower healthcare costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small," the CBO determined."

"Of course, there's an easy way for a doctor to avoid malpractice suits: do a good job. Do no harm and you probably won't get sued. And the courts are good at throwing out frivolous lawsuits before they become expensive.
Contrary to corporate belief, patients don't undergo surgery in hope of striking it rich as the result of some medical mishap. And victims rarely sue. Those who do are desperate for justice and money to cover the additional medical care necessitated by their doctor's incompetence."

Bush stumps against victims rights

According to the American Progress Action Fund , President Bush yesterday pushed his plan to restrict justice for injured plaintiffs. The president claimed on behalf of the insurance industry "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. His proposal would have no real effect on the cost of health care. The caps would " disproportionately affect " children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it also would " undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation."

Today's high premiums are a result of insurance industry pricing practices which gouge doctors. Consider: While malpractice payouts actually went down by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002, there was no corresponding decrease in doctors' premiums ; the insurance industry simply pocketed the difference. The Des Moines Register points out, "There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money."

A study by Weiss Ratings, Inc., showed that in 19 states with malpractice caps, physicians suffered a 48.2 percent jump in their premiums. Meanwhile, in 32 states without caps, premiums rose by only 35.9 percent. In other words, there is no connection between caps and premium rates. That finding was echoed by the Congressional Budget Office, which found there is " no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts."

The ironic point is that in oreder to be "capped", you must first prove that your damages are over the cap!!!! The cap just redistributes the burden so that the victim bears the "cost" of the doctors malpractice. I wonder if Bush would propose a cap in the following case: his stockbroker gave him negligent advise that he relied on and lost $500,000. Should his damages be capped at $250 too?

Some Doctors Stop treating Lawyers Kin

A South Carolina surgeon dropped a patient when he found out her husband was a lawyer. Nationwide, some doctors are using 'gorilla' tactics to punish lawyers, who they blame for rising insurance costs, instead of blaming the doctors who are negligent or the insurance companies who are gouging dosctors. The Goverment Congessional Budget Office has already reported a drop in malpractice claims since 2001 which coincides with the collapse of the stock market. The rise in rates of up to 30% can be directly related to insurance companie stock market declines, not higher plaintiffs verdicts. Click here for more Jury statistics. The average award for all types of successful plaintiffs in state court has fallen from $65,000 in 1992 to $37,000 in 2001.

Judge Orders N.J. Med-Mal Data Made Public

New Jersey patients soon will be able to use a new state Web site to obtain information about doctors, including details about malpractice claims they have settled.

The release of the information cleared a legal hurdle when a federal judge allowed the state to release the records. Public notification of malpractice payouts was signed into law last year by the governor, and was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the state by a daily newspaper, The Record of Bergen County.

Doctors had opposed a state judge's order earlier this year to release records of the payments, which are made by the companies that provide malpractice insurance. Doctors said settlements are neither admissions of negligence nor measures of competence.

U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler said withholding the malpractice payment records would mean people are "deprived of information that can be vital in making one of the most serious decisions in one's life -- one's health care.''

Data released by the state Division of Consumer Affairs showed that over the last five years New Jersey doctors' insurance companies have paid more than $890 million in malpractice payments.

Those payments were on behalf of 2,333 doctors, or a little more than 10 percent of the state's 22,000 physicians, the newspaper reported.

Doctors said lawyers often advise them to settle malpractice lawsuits -- whether they acted wrongly or not -- to avoid large jury awards. Conroy said the release of settlement information will prolong those legal battles.

The state-run Web site with details about doctors will become active June 23, which is when more information about the site will be available, according to the state Division of Consumer Affairs.

The site will contain information on the malpractice payouts, as well as physicians' schooling, specialties and any disciplinary action they have faced.

Judge Orders N.J. Med-Mal Data Made Public

New Jersey patients soon will be able to use a new state Web site to obtain information about doctors, including details about malpractice claims they have settled.

The release of the information cleared a legal hurdle when a federal judge allowed the state to release the records. Public notification of malpractice payouts was signed into law last year by the governor, and was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the state by a daily newspaper, The Record of Bergen County.

Doctors had opposed a state judge's order earlier this year to release records of the payments, which are made by the companies that provide malpractice insurance. Doctors said settlements are neither admissions of negligence nor measures of competence.

U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler said withholding the malpractice payment records would mean people are "deprived of information that can be vital in making one of the most serious decisions in one's life -- one's health care.''

Data released by the state Division of Consumer Affairs showed that over the last five years New Jersey doctors' insurance companies have paid more than $890 million in malpractice payments.

Those payments were on behalf of 2,333 doctors, or a little more than 10 percent of the state's 22,000 physicians, the newspaper reported.

Doctors said lawyers often advise them to settle malpractice lawsuits -- whether they acted wrongly or not -- to avoid large jury awards. Conroy said the release of settlement information will prolong those legal battles.

The state-run Web site with details about doctors will become active June 23, which is when more information about the site will be available, according to the state Division of Consumer Affairs.

The site will contain information on the malpractice payouts, as well as physicians' schooling, specialties and any disciplinary action they have faced.

Judge Orders N.J. Med-Mal Data Made Public

New Jersey patients soon will be able to use a new state Web site to obtain information about doctors, including details about malpractice claims they have settled.

The release of the information cleared a legal hurdle when a federal judge allowed the state to release the records. Public notification of malpractice payouts was signed into law last year by the governor, and was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the state by a daily newspaper, The Record of Bergen County.

Doctors had opposed a state judge's order earlier this year to release records of the payments, which are made by the companies that provide malpractice insurance. Doctors said settlements are neither admissions of negligence nor measures of competence.

U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler said withholding the malpractice payment records would mean people are "deprived of information that can be vital in making one of the most serious decisions in one's life -- one's health care.''

Data released by the state Division of Consumer Affairs showed that over the last five years New Jersey doctors' insurance companies have paid more than $890 million in malpractice payments.

Those payments were on behalf of 2,333 doctors, or a little more than 10 percent of the state's 22,000 physicians, the newspaper reported.

Doctors said lawyers often advise them to settle malpractice lawsuits -- whether they acted wrongly or not -- to avoid large jury awards. Conroy said the release of settlement information will prolong those legal battles.

The state-run Web site with details about doctors will become active June 23, which is when more information about the site will be available, according to the state Division of Consumer Affairs.

The site will contain information on the malpractice payouts, as well as physicians' schooling, specialties and any disciplinary action they have faced.

Bush Turns His Back on Fight for Patients' Rights

Four years ago, then-Gov. George W. Bush cast himself as a champion of patients' rights. Pressed by Al Gore in their final presidential debate on whether patients should be allowed to sue health plans for wrongfully withholding care, he pointed to a pioneering Texas law passed on his watch. "I brought Republicans and Democrats together … to get a patients' bill of rights," Bush said. "We are one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage."

But President Bush, it seems, has changed his mind. The Texas law he championed is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and this week the administration will ask that the justices strike it down.

Fewer Medical Malpractice Suits Are Making It To Court

New figures out March 17, 2004 from the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court show it is getting harder for patients to sue their doctors for malpractice.

In the last two years, the PA state Legislature and the governor have raised the standard that courts must use to determine if a malpractice case will be heard in court or whether the case is thrown out.

House Republican leaders said those figures show those higher standards are working.

The report issued by Chief Justice Ralph Cappy found there were fewer than 2,700 malpractice suits filed in Pennsylvania in the year 2000. The number increased in 2001 and 2002, but then dropped to 1,989 in 2003. That's a nearly 29 percent drop in the four-year period.

The head of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, which has opposed most malpractice reforms, said the changes the Legislature has made have accomplished its goal.

Pennsylvania patients are split over the proposed caps on victims rights.

Tort Reform update

Is there a Malpractice Crisis? Then doesn't that mean too many doctors are making mistakes? If medical malpractice causes bad doctors to go out of business, maybe that’s a good thing. If there’s a medical malpractice insurance problem, let’s call it that. Insurance companies have taken losses in the last few years due to natural disasters and stock market woes. As a result, shareholder profits are not there like they once were.
NYU School of Law professor Jennifer Arlen, who published a piece on medical malpractice liabilities in the NYU Law Review in December, cites a Harvard Medical Practices study that "examined 30,195 written records in the New York state hospital system, and found that about 4 percent of hospitalized patients were injured by the care they received, with one-quarter of these injuries resulting from medical negligence." The report also stated that "one-quarter of the victims of negligence died."
Will caps on Damages lower Malpractice rates? The evidence says no! Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler and many legislators say caps alone won't solve the problem
The available data seem to support Kreidler and his allies, at least if the goal is to keep the cost of malpractice insurance down. A survey of malpractice insurers nationwide shows that rate increases vary widely by state and caps don't ensure lower rates. A review of malpractice rate increases last year by Medical Liability Monitor, an independent reporting service that tracks medical professional liability trends and issues, shows that states without caps on noneconomic damages had the lowest -- and highest -- rate increases.
Some consumer groups such as the Connecticut Patients' Rights Group oppose caps.

Pennsylvania Dentist loses license, now in jail

Jenny Stephens of Lansdale PA successfully sued an Ambler dentist for medical malpractice after finding out he performed a tooth extraction on her despite the fact that he “had bipolar disorder and an alcohol dependency that was under investigation by the Pennsylvania medical board concerning his fitness to practice dentistry‚” according to her lawsuit.

A tooth extraction performed by Dr. Gary William Pacropis in May 2000 left her unable to continue to perform her regular work. The procedure damaged the trigeminal nerve in her mouth‚ her jawbone became infected‚ and the right side of her mouth now droops down.
“It appears as if I had a stroke‚” Stephens said. “My life totally changed as I know it‚ and even talking hurts. Before this happened‚ I was always front and center.” Her only solution now is brain surgery‚ a risky procedure she won’t consider despite the fact that she lives with constant pain.

Stephens said she doesn’t know what she would’ve done had she not sued Pacropis‚ who in her words‚ “mutilated my mouth” during a routine tooth extraction in May 2000. “I’d be bankrupt‚” she said “I’d be penniless and I would lose everything I worked hard for all my life.”

Pacropis’ dental license was indefinitely suspended in February 2002‚ after he pleaded guilty to “crimes or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude‚” according to The Pennsylvania State Department’s Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. Pacropis’ medical license was revoked permanently in August 2002 after he pleaded guilty and was sentenced in July 2002 for his fifth drunken-driving arrest in Montgomery County‚ according to court records. He remains in Montgomery County prison‚ according to county prison officials.

2 Doctors Sue for Malpractice

When two St. Clair County Illinois doctors were so seriously injured after their surgeries that they could no longer practice medicine, they filed medical malpractice suits. Dr. Larry Alves has heard his colleagues complain about high jury awards and sky-rocketing malpractice insurance rates and he empathizes with them. But he also knows firsthand the price of substandard medical care.

So does Dr. Donald Jerome, an ear, nose and throat specialist who practiced in Belleville, who underwent surgery on Nov. 21, 1997 on his neck to fuse two vertebrae. During the surgery, two surgical nurses pointed out a crack in the surgical drill to neurosurgeon Dr. William Sprich, but Sprich used the drill anyway, the complaint alleged.

A small piece of a drill broke off during the procedure and became lodged in Jerome's spine, according to court records, but Sprich completed the surgery without removing the metal. Jerome suffered permanent vocal chord paralysis, nerve damage, esophageal reflux and coughing spells.
Because of his medical condition, Jerome couldn't continue practicing medicine.

Bush and GOP push bogus malpractice 'crisis' with dubious witnesses

Dr. Robert Zaleski a Wheeling, W. Va., orthopedic surgeon was one of two dozen surgeons to walk off the job in January to protest his state's high costs of malpractice insurance arguing that "frivolous lawsuits" were driving up insurance premiums and forcing physicians to leave the state.
It appears that Zaleski may be more a source of the problem than a victim of it. Between 1987 and 2002, according to the West Virginia Board of Medicine, patients filed 14 lawsuits against Zaleski, eight of which resulted in payouts that together came to $1.7 million. In a 1985 lawsuit (one not among the 14 reported to the Board of Medicine), he admitted in a deposition to being addicted to prescription painkillers for a substantial part of the time that he was operating on people in the early 1980s. Not only was he a drug addict, but to maintain his Percodan habit, Zaleski allegedly wrote prescriptions for other local addicts.

In February 2001, responding to local doctors' allegations of 'lawsuit abuse", the Charleston Gazette undertook a computer-assisted analysis of more than 2,000 medical malpractice claims reported to the West Virginia Board of Medicine. The paper determined that far from being in a state of crisis, West Virginia ranked 35th in the country for median malpractice payouts. The paper also found that both the number of malpractice claims and the dollar amounts of the settlements and verdicts had actually declined between 1993 and 2001.

Last July, congressional Republicans launched hearings featuring testimony of a West Virginia doctor named Dr. Samuel Roberts. Roberts, one of only three doctors who testified, told the committee that he could not afford the insurance to continue delivering babies, and claimed that this year, "I will have to stop, leaving seven counties around me with no family physician delivering prenatal or maternity care." Roberts omitted some critical facts that might have explained some of his insurance woes: In 1987, he pleaded guilty to five counts of cocaine possession and was sentenced to five years probation, according to the Charleston Gazette. In response, the state suspended his medical license for a year, though it later reduced the penalty to five years of supervised probation. A year after his dire threats of doom to Congress, Roberts is today still practicing medicine.

In a speech at Little Rock Jan. 26, President Bush pointed out Dr. Sara McBee of Fayetteville and said that she'd stopped delivering babies because of rising insurance costs that were "a direct result of too many junk lawsuits." Bush was promoting his legislation to restrict medical malpractice lawsuits. He told the crowd:
"Sara McBee is here. There's Sara. She's from Fayetteville, Arkansas. She practices family medicine. She was delivering between 80 and 100 babies a year. Now, there's a soul - a good soul, who loves life to the point where she's willing to take her talents and deliver babies. It must be an unbelievably satisfying profession to bring life to be.
"And yet, in July of 2002, her insurance premiums had more than doubled. See, the litigation culture made it nearly impossible for her to practice her love. I say nearly impossible, because she wouldn't break her commitments to expecting patients and hung in there for a year. But her premiums continued to rise, and Dr. McBee has stopped delivering babies, as a direct result of too many junk lawsuits. And that's not right. That's not right." (Applause.)
Bush did not mention (although he knew it, according to McBee), that a medical malpractice suit is pending against McBee by a couple who say their child was born with brain damage and multiple disabilities because of mistakes by the doctor.

Doctor: improve Patient Safety to reduce malpractice costs

The current medical liability system works poorly for patients and physicians. Steep increases in malpractice premiums lead to physicians practicing "defensive medicine," which in turn contributes to rising health care costs, in addition to patients' enduring unnecessary medical procedures. Meanwhile, large numbers of Americans continue to suffer preventable medical injuries.
"Physicians must use their abilities to make care safer and injuries rarer, by developing, evaluating, and implementing safety improvements," said Stephen C. Schoenbaum, M.D., senior vice president at the Commonwealth Fund. "More active work on the part of physicians to improve care and reduce harm is clearly in the best interest of the public and physicians."
Physicians must play an active role in developing and implementing systems to improve patient safety, according to an article published in the Jan. 6 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.
In "Malpractice Reform Must Include Steps to Prevent Medical Injury," The Commonwealth Fund and the Urban Institute say that focusing solely on capping malpractice awards -- the solution most commonly promoted by physicians in the current debate -- leaves out the largest problem: patient injury.

American hospitals and doctors delivering unsafe health care

Jan. 5,2004 - Donald Berwick says our nation's world-class hospitals and doctors are delivering health care that is unsafe and unreliable. But his call to dismantle the system makes the medical establishment uneasy -- because he used to be part of it, according to a Boston Globe article on health care.

A respected voice in health care analysis, Berwicks vision is remarkable and he says attainable:
When you wanted to see your doctor, you would call in the morning and get an appointment that afternoon. And it would start on time, not an hour and three outdated People magazines later.
You would maintain control of your medical record, rather than needing a subpoena just to get a peek at it.
Hospitals would have genuine one-stop registration, and every employee would be trained to have the customer-service touch of a Ritz-Carlton concierge. No one would ask you to wear one of those open-backed johnnies.
Waiting would be kept to a minimum, because the hospital will have embraced flow management, anticipating rather than just reacting. There would be no visiting hours in the intensive care unit, since any family member could visit at any time.
Medication errors -- overdoses, allergic reactions, and other adverse responses -- would be all but eliminated by the universal adoption of computerized drug-ordering systems. Hospitals would impose a zero-tolerance policy for workers failing to wash their hands, a move that could save upward of 10,000 lives a year.
Communication and patient-advocacy systems would put an end to horror stories like the one involving the 5-year-old boy who died at Children's Hospital last year because each of his many doctors assumed another doctor was in charge.