Health Care Debate- Don't Ignore Lawsuit Abuse In This Conversation
It should come as no surprise that President Obama’s effort to reform health care is at the forefront of our national political dialogue. And it should – after all – the health care industry comprises one-sixth of our economy and has a daily impact on all of our lives. Rightly taking center stage in this debate is the overwhelming costs of the proposed legislation. But what we aren’t hearing about is legal reform.
The cost of lawsuit abuse to our health care system is exorbitant. In The Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer outlined a very cogent overview of the types of cost savings medical liability reform would provide for our health care system.
In his op-ed, Krauthammer argues that we should scrap the current system which overwhelming favors personal injury lawyers who usually take up to 1/3 of the proceeds from tort verdicts. He proposes to have an expert , adjudication system comprised of medical professionals, which could help downsize puffed up jury awards and make the true penalty for malpractice the loss of one’s license. Further, he mentions the problem of defensive medicine as a result of the current sue-happy environment, which drives costs up exponentially. As a physician myself, I can attest to the fact that defensive medicine – submitting patients to tests which may not be needed - are a fact of life in this litigious environment. In 2006, PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimated that 10 cents out of every dollar spent on health care can be attributed to the costs of liability and defensive medicine.
It should be clear that without real medical liability reform, health care costs will continue to soar, medical innovation will be threatened, patient health will be jeopardized and court system will continue to be used for greed rather than justice.
Dr. Ron Elfenbein is a Emergency Room Physician in Maryland and a board member of Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (www.mdcala.org)
3 comments:
I'm a professional nurse with thirty-eight years of experience and the mother of a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq.
Republicans have indicated that they want tort reform as part of the health system reform legislation. I believe that tort reform should be limited, since persons need redress to injury from medical negligence and malpractice. Any tort reform must be accompanied by a guarantee of reduced costs from insurance providers for malpractice insurance.
The reduced malpractice insurance costs should be linked to requirements that will improve reporting and review of medical errors, since recent studies confirm the lack of effective progress over the last decade by the medical community to decrease either the rates or the human and financial costs of medical errors.
By earlier reporting of medical mistakes, hazards and problematic practices will be identified, leading to preventive interventions and cost savings. Effective models now exist for improved tracking and intervention for medical errors. In addition, any tort reform legislation must include stronger laws to protect the private or public employment of health workers who report negligence/malpractice in good faith (i.e. whistle blower protection).
Currently, it is extremely risky for health care workers to report negligence and malpractice. Many extant cases demonstrate that health care whistle blowers, whether employed in public or private settings, will risk their jobs, their careers, and their livelihoods by reporting actions that they believe in good faith to be negligence or malpractice.
Todd and Ron,
Thanks for sharing this information. I know my colleagues in the Plaitniff's bar (I an a defense attorney btw) hate this idea and insist that victims will only be victimized further without having lawyers taking up to 40% plus costs of jury verdicts.
Even though I am a lawyer, I can see the justice in a plan that can do a better job of compensating victims of medical negligence, do a better job of punishing doctors who harm patients with their negligence and lessen the impact of costs on the health care system.
There is a reason why trial lawyers (dominated by those on the Plaitniff's side) are so heavily invested in one side of the political system.
Completely missing from the healthcare debate is the substandard performance on the part of doctors. First hand horrific experiences aside, this profession has no real oversight from those they ‘serve’ and are too often arrogant. Patients are not only disallowed from having input into their own health care and health maintenance, but are scoffed at when the topic of internet research is raised. The attitude is one of, how dare a patient go beyond a face to face Doctor to obtain facts.
Doctors are not gods. They’re highly fallible humans who too often prescribe pills to placate symptoms rather than provide intelligent diagnoses for permanent cures and are either ill trained, or too focused on pay while stacking long lines in waiting rooms.
More nurses and Physician’s Assistants, more responsibility for those folks will solve a multitude of horrendous problems that Doctors are creating.
Post a Comment