The Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis

[Guest hardyz1]

With the recent strike of West Virginia surgeons, I did a little reading about it, and the problem comes back to the obvious: lawyers. It's become so easy to sue doctors and get asinine amounts of money that insurance has skyrocketed, with some doctors paying upwards of $200,000 a year, sometimes even $400,000. It's a problem in many states, including mine, Pennsylvania.

 

These states need to follow the lead of California, which put a cap on damages that can be awarded, and the average doctor there pays $43,000 a year.

 

Thoughts?

[Guest DrTom]

I think a cap is very necessary.

 

It needs to be easy to sue, because everyone needs to have access to the courty system. However, it should be damn hard to collect money. You should have to prove clear malpractice. A regular judge and jury might not even be qualified to determine malpractice. Either way, a liability cap might discourage so many people suing for silly things. Doctors shouldn't have to pay 1/3 or more of their salaries in fricking insurance bills.

 

The problem is, the insurance companies settle out of court because it's easier than going to trial. Plaintiffs (and their lawyers) know this, so they shoot the moon in their damage claims, which raises the amount of the settlements. It's a vicious cycle, and capping the damages that can be awarded would be a good way to prevent it.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I think a cap is very necessary.

 

It needs to be easy to sue, because everyone needs to have access to the courty system. However, it should be damn hard to collect money. You should have to prove clear malpractice. A regular judge and jury might not even be qualified to determine malpractice. Either way, a liability cap might discourage so many people suing for silly things. Doctors shouldn't have to pay 1/3 or more of their salaries in fricking insurance bills.

 

The problem is, the insurance companies settle out of court because it's easier than going to trial. Plaintiffs (and their lawyers) know this, so they shoot the moon in their damage claims, which raises the amount of the settlements. It's a vicious cycle, and capping the damages that can be awarded would be a good way to prevent it.

you took the words out of my mouth.

 

--Rob

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Read about this very topic a long time ago back in National Review. Scumbag lawyers bleeding an industry dry. So what else is new?...

[Guest MrRant]

As much as I dislike some lawyers.... I wouldn't mind getting paid like some of them.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Not that the issue really matters anymore. The majority of doctors/medical practitioners in California (no idea if it applies to the rest of the country or not) require you to sign away your right to sue before they'll treat you. So even if it was malpractice, it wouldn't really matter. This is especially true with OB/GYN; they won't even look at you without signing away your right to sue, privacy, first born, etc...

[Guest EricMM]

I think it's sad when people sue doctors. I mean, would you prefer not getting help? But when people do get help, and it doesn't go as planned, they sue for millions.

[Guest NoCalMike]

It is a hard situation to make a clear cut decision on. On one hand you need doctors to be accountable for what they do, yet on the other hand, human error is unavoidable and will happen no matter how "intelligent" the person is. One thing that is crooked is sealing the rights to an autopsy by and individual coroner(sp?)

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I think it's sad when people sue doctors. I mean, would you prefer not getting help? But when people do get help, and it doesn't go as planned, they sue for millions.

If you were talking about cosmetic or other unnecessary surgery, I'd totally agree, but if a doctor makes a mistake in a procedure where someone's life depends on it, and that mistake causes the person additional suffering that requires additional surgery and/or treatment, they should have every right to sue, although I do think it should be capped so that they can only sue for what the additional procedures/treatment costs them.

[Guest HecateRose]

I read a story about a woman who found out her doctor had left a surgical instrument in her abdominal cavity when she walked through an airport metal detector. For something like that, I can't blame some one for suing. That is clearly negligent. Now, if someone's lyposuction doesn't go as planned, screw them. If you can afford to get procedures like that, I doubt you need to sue them. Especially because there are such risks in some procedures. Something could always go wrong, but that doesn't mean it was the doctor's fault. Maybe they should come up with clearer guidelines as to what legally qualifies as malpractice or negligence. That could potentially make it harder for people who are just suing to make a quick buck (or because a lawyer convinces them that they are a victim), and it could protect the doctors from over priced insurance. I don't know if it would actually work in the real world, but I think it would be an easy place to start. So many people complain about frivilous lawsuits, maybe creating stricter rules could help prevent some of that too. There is no way to tell if it would really work, but I doubt it would be so incredibly difficult to try it that it wouldn't be worth a shot.