Doctors for Medical Liability Reform

[Yardbird]

Bruce,
I'm sorry to legal document you referred to because it means my idea already exists (first disappointment) and doesn't work (second disappointment). Our country, the US, is so sue-happy nowadays, and I feel like such a culture really makes a mockery out of the whole justice system. While I believe that the medical field is in need of major reform, particularly with regard to cost (I still believe basic medical care is a human right in countries with the resouces to provide it), reforms are just as necessary in the justice system.

HairLossTalk.com,
The statement in question was:

"I don't think anyone who takes my viewpoint on this issue thinks that frivolous lawsuits should be overlooked, so thats not too much of an issue. Frivolous lawsuits are a problem with every single profession and environment on this earth, not just medical related ones. "

I took "so that's not too much of an issue" to mean that frivolous lawsuits are not an issue because they were not central in your opinion. I see now that you meant the word "that" to refer to overlooking frivolous lawsuits. I now understand what you are saying.

However, my point was not about whether people are overlooking frivolous lawsuits or not. I was focusing on potential solutions to that problem since, as you said yourself, frivolous lawsuits are pervasive in every ascept of society. Something really must be done. Solve this problem, and I'd be willing to bet a number of your opponents would become more inclined to agree with you about doctors' accountability and appropriate punishment for negligence.

 

[Axon]

Haha, your idea.

 

[Yardbird]

Yeah, it's like that song I almost wrote...what was the title?
Ah yes..."Islands in the Stream."
But that was different because, in the end, I was glad I hadn't written that one.

 

[Axon]

At least you've got a sense of humor.

 

[Odelay]

For each outrageous settlement you hear about that includes mental anguish, 10 or 20 get dismissed.

Your facts are a little off. PI Lawyers get 1/3 and occasionally they command as much as 40%. These also float any and all legal fees before hand. Ask for any more and you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Lawyers also know when they have a case and when they don't, they know when to drop if a certain judge is assigned, etc, etc. They also prey on emotional connections to juries to win larger awards; wheter you're willing to admit it or not it's your (and my) peers that are deciding the size of these settlements. An unbiased jury does not exsist.

You say we need Tort Reform. Fair enough - the system is currently a mess of bias and red tape. I would know, I deal with complex litigations and mass-torts for a living. Tort reform has been ongoing for many years, and it is difficult to come up with a better system without giving up your due process rights. Before you get your panties in a twist, I would be for a limitation on awards except under extreme circumstances, such as death or paralyzation.

But I would suggest that, in addition, we need medical reform. The current state of Doctors and hospitals makes me sick. Many doctors are horribly indifferent and tired of the constant bullshit from patients, but it's a vicious cycle. I cannot have sympathy for them. Lawyers are shithead leeches but at least they admit it; doctors sit on their Ivory towers and pretend they can do no wrong. In fact, this entire website is indicative of the typical "pass the buck" mentality I see in M.D.'s.

Actually my facts are dead on, and you just supported my claims. Never said all trial lawyers take 50% I said they can take up to 50% of the settlement, and you agreed. Some of the claims people are getting are absurd and everyone know this. While the lawyer might be good at preying on people's sympathy that does not mean it is the right thing to do, and should not be stopped.

Once again you are stating stuff out of the blue, none of which I said. Maybe your panties are all twisted, but that's your problem. If you look at the site it says nothing about 250,000 and that's it, they fully agree that in extreme cases ongoing finacial compensation is necessary.

While some doctors are clueless, they still have more knowledge than an average person will ever know about the body and medicines. I would hope that if you needed surgery for something you would not just read up about the surgery and get your scalpel out and start cutting. While you might not like doctors they are doing a lot more good then they are bad, just because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear does not mean they are wrong. There millions of things that can go wrong with your body, a doctor has to sift through all the thousands of possiblities and find out what is wrong with you. If you think you can do a better job go get your M.D. and change things for the better. The fact is though the first time you get sick, injured, or need surgery, you will go see a doctor so obviously they are doing a good job or everyone would just be looking on the internet for how to guides for surgery.

 

[Odelay]

But I would suggest that, in addition, we need medical reform. The current state of Doctors and hospitals makes me sick. Many doctors are horribly indifferent and tired of the constant bullshit from patients, but it's a vicious cycle. I cannot have sympathy for them. Lawyers are shithead leeches but at least they admit it; doctors sit on their Ivory towers and pretend they can do no wrong. In fact, this entire website is indicative of the typical "pass the buck" mentality I see in M.D.'s.

Exactly, bingo bingo bingo.

To sit there and deny that medical reform wont reduce lawsuits is completely flat out wrong. It will. Exponentially.

That is why I say this whole "Pity the doctor" mentality is backwards. Maybe some people just haven't had to get a lot of medical assistance yet in their lives. Those of us who have, know how bad things are.

HairLossTalk.com

Give me a break. I have at least 3 members of my family that have spent more time in a hospital than you ever will, and thanks to the doctors that you seem so misguided about all of them are still living. I have had 2 family members that have had cancer and had to receive chemotherapy for months and had to have extensive surgery. My father has had at least 12 different operations ranging from minor to extensive surgery, and he is still alive thanks to doctors. Don't let your bias get in the way of logic when you speak.

 

[Odelay]

Since the overwhealming majority of LAWMAKERS are ah, lawyers, what chance do you think we have of getting laws that REALLY cut into attorney income??

Think so?

What you don't seem to get is that there are different types of lawyers, those that actually care and those that could give a damn as long as they get paid. Many of the Senators are people who have to care about the people or else they will be out of a job, that is what makes this system work at the end of the day the Senators need the people. A bill similar to this was already passed in the House, which also supports a large number of lawyers. So yes, there is a very good chance that laws of this nature will get passed because once the politicians see this is a cause that many people that are voting them into office support they will jump on the bandwagon.

I would respectfully disagree with your point that a bill that costs lawyers their largesse has any chance of passing in Congress.


:freaked2:

While you might know a lot about hair loss you know little about politics. The ONLY people holding this bill back from being passed in the Senate are those Democrats that are getting funding from, get this, trial lawyers. One includes John Edwards, who knew he had no chance of winning for Senate in NC so he ran for president. President Bush has already said that the bill would be signed if it passed the Senate, but those Democrats that are funded by the trial lawyers seem to be holding it back, wonder why? :roll:

 

[Odelay]

Since the overwhealming majority of LAWMAKERS are ah, lawyers, what chance do you think we have of getting laws that REALLY cut into attorney income??

Think so?

What you don't seem to get is that there are different types of lawyers, those that actually care and those that could give a damn as long as they get paid. Many of the Senators are people who have to care about the people or else they will be out of a job, that is what makes this system work at the end of the day the Senators need the people. A bill similar to this was already passed in the House, which also supports a large number of lawyers. So yes, there is a very good chance that laws of this nature will get passed because once the politicians see this is a cause that many people that are voting them into office support they will jump on the bandwagon.

I would respectfully disagree with your point that a bill that costs lawyers their largesse has any chance of passing in Congress.


:freaked2:

While you might know a lot about hair loss you know little about politics. The ONLY people holding this bill back from being passed in the Senate are those Democrats that are getting funding from, get this, trial lawyers. One includes John Edwards, who knew he had no chance of winning for Senate in NC so he ran for president. President Bush has already said that the bill would be signed if it passed the Senate, but those Democrats that are funded by the trial lawyers seem to be holding it back, wonder why? :roll: Once people start realizing what is happening it will be passed, because they will know not to vote for the people holding the bill back.

 

[Odelay]

I encourage all of you to review 5 posts I found in a matter of 20 seconds by doing a simple search on these forums. Tell me our opinions are misguided.... Tell me people are happy with their doctors.
HairLossTalk.com

HairLossTalk.com, these examples all deal with hairloss, I had a similar experience with my derm, not knowing about propecia sheds. Doctors are not perfect by virtue of the fact that they are human. I understand you are frustrated, but to say every doctor is bad, because you and others had bad experiences with some physicians is a poor generalization. It is offensive to me and thousands of other hardworking, caring, intelligent members of the medical community.

I am not even in the medical community and his generalizations are offensive to me.

 

[Odelay]

Man this thread has been warped so far out of context it's insane. The ENTIRE point of this thread is that a very small percentage of doctors are wrecking the entire system, and the lawyers are making the problem worse. The entire organization of DMLR is only trying to put a limit on the excessive claims people are getting in lawsuits, which are driving up the cost of malpractice insurance. No one is saying doctors don't make mistakes, no one is saying people should not be awarded claims if they were a victom of malpractice. These doctors just want some type of regulation on the obsurd amounts of money the lawyers and patients are getting. If a person is a victom of malpractice they will receive enough money depending on what has occured to make a full recovery if possible. While the saying goes that a few always wreck it for everyone else we can't afford for that to be the case when our health is at stake, which is why something like what the DMLR is fighting for must be instituted.

 

[Axon]

Actually my facts are dead on, and you just supported my claims. Never said all trial lawyers take 50% I said they can take up to 50% of the settlement, and you agreed. Some of the claims people are getting are absurd and everyone know this. While the lawyer might be good at preying on people's sympathy that does not mean it is the right thing to do, and should not be stopped.

Once again you are stating stuff out of the blue, none of which I said. Maybe your panties are all twisted, but that's your problem. If you look at the site it says nothing about 250,000 and that's it, they fully agree that in extreme cases ongoing finacial compensation is necessary.

While some doctors are clueless, they still have more knowledge than an average person will ever know about the body and medicines. I would hope that if you needed surgery for something you would not just read up about the surgery and get your scalpel out and start cutting. While you might not like doctors they are doing a lot more good then they are bad, just because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear does not mean they are wrong. There millions of things that can go wrong with your body, a doctor has to sift through all the thousands of possiblities and find out what is wrong with you. If you think you can do a better job go get your M.D. and change things for the better. The fact is though the first time you get sick, injured, or need surgery, you will go see a doctor so obviously they are doing a good job or everyone would just be looking on the internet for how to guides for surgery.

Awwwww, cry baby, cry. Sorry, we don't agree with your opinion or your totally biased and inaccurate website. Continue to come and embarass yourself, though. (That should rile him up, eh?)

Your "facts" are dead wrong. No legit trial lawyer takes more than 40%, anyone taking more is a shister and that's rare. THEY ALL FLOAT THE LEGAL FEES AND CAN POTENTIALLY LOSE MORE THAN THEY EARN, something you seem to ignore. Trials are not free, discovery is not free, depositions are not free. If you lose a case you lose money. Yeah, Lawyers can be scummy, but just like doctors, not all of them are. You need to wake up, doctors are not all sunshine and roses.

I never once agreed that any trial lawyer will take 50% or more. Show me the quote. You may have read what I said incorrectly, but I never said such a thing.

The Bar Association of every state watches attorneys carefully and will quickly impose penalties on any wrong doing. You obviously know nothing of the legal system beyond what you may have heard on the news or read in Newsweek. Once you are disbared you are FUCKED and your career is over.

You stated the $250,000 number. See?

A bill has already been passed in the House that "places a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, limits attorneys’ contingency fees by using a sliding scale, and requires periodic payment of future economic damages in excess of $50,000."

Never once did I claim the web site stated such a thing. You mentioned it, however. This bill will never, ever pass - you will never beat an attorney at his own game. Further, Lawyers are a business, and given that our economy is based on capitalism, they should be allowed to take as much as they want as long as the client agrees.

Of course doctors want this legislation in place. In my opinion it's a little too protective and needs modification before I would be for it. Because I am defending the rights of attorneys does not mean I entirely disagree with you as I've stated; you, however, percieve any dissenting opinion as being totally against your stance. Again, I do not decide the size of the award, but a jury of my peers does. How do you propose to change 200 years worth of a capable legal system? Who defines frivilous? Why should someone pay a penalty for someone else's bias? A judge will ALWAYS be more in favor of a Lawyer or a Doctor. And you can't blame a lawyer for getting the most out of his cases. When you go to a store you want the best deal - it's human nature.

I never once stated Doctors were stupid or unskilled. I never have, I never will. Yes, some are bad at their job, and yes, some are better. You seem to think I am anti-doctor when in truth I am not.

I must admit I gain a certain amount of satisfaction watching these fat cats run for the hills in fear of the oh-so-big-bad lawyer, but I acknowledge the skill and ability being a Doctor requires and I appreciate it. Of course I would seek a doctor if I was sick, man! What's wrong with you? That's why I WANT medicial reform, so Doctors will do a better job on the whole.

Ever see a situation where a doctor won't treat a sick person because they won't get paid? I have. Ever see a situation where a doctor does? I have. No problem with the latter, but I should never, ever, see the former.


[/quote]

 

[Axon]

Man this thread has been warped so far out of context it's insane. The ENTIRE point of this thread is that a very small percentage of doctors are wrecking the entire system, and the lawyers are making the problem worse.

Agreed. At least you admit it. Don't say "the" lawyers, though, as if you mean all of them. That simply isn't true.

 

[Axon]

Oh and last I checked, Republicans are in control of congress. Shouldn't have trouble passing this bill if it's those gay democrats.

 

[Guest]

>>While you might know a lot about hair loss you know little about politics. The ONLY people holding this bill back from being passed in the Senate are those Democrats that are getting funding from, get this, trial lawyers. One includes John Edwards, who knew he had no chance of winning for Senate in NC so he ran for president. President Bush has already said that the bill would be signed if it passed the Senate, but those Democrats that are funded by the trial lawyers seem to be holding it back, wonder why? >>



As much as I would LOVE to dump this all at the feet of the Democraps, I don't think it is as simple as that. While this latest bill MIGHT pass if the Democraps get out of the way or get outvoted, there is a very real doubt in my mind that it will, per se, resolve the issue.

Lawyers it seems are a tough group to beat back. Hey, they make there living working on the details!

But hey, I could be wrong!

 

[Axon]

It won't resolve anything except maybe lower the premiums Doctors pay to malpractice insurance companies.

There is currently a limitation on how much you can sue for in lieu of a car accident. It hasn't done much to stop the flow of lawsuits or lower insurance premiums on the whole. There are many reasons for this, among them are the shrewd business skills of insurance firms, another is that car accidents simply don't stop, regardless of the US court's stances on them. Malpractice is not likely to stop even with a limitation placed on an award after a conviction, which is quite sad.

The solution is just not that simple. We need Tort reform on a grand scale and in areas beyond medical malpractice. We need to not only change the court filing system, but also the definition of the word liability.

The problem is that there really is no way to do these things. Stopping cases from being filed will put more of a burden on legitimate cases (there are many), and leaving the system as is will only continue the already exsisting problems. Due Process is not a civil liberty you want given up. Furthemore, limitations placed on a court are almost always argued against and defeated - as Bruce mentioned, it is not easy to hold down a skilled attorney. With the right judge, anything can happen.

 

[Guest]

Malpractice insurance rates send doctors fleeing to Colo.

By Marsha Austin
Denver Post Business Writer

<http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/malpractice0304.jpg>
Schmitz: Found a wealth of talent willing to move to Colorado when she was looking for a partner in her practice.

The nation's rising malpractice insurance crisis is a talent boon for Colorado.

Doctors who want out of high-cost insurance premiums in states such as Illinois, Ohio and New York are inundating Colorado hospitals and physician practices with résumés.

Nearly half of the 2,178 doctors who have moved to Colorado in the past year fled what the American Medical Association calls malpractice "crisis states," according to Peregrine Management Corp., a Denver firm that tracks data on physician practices. Another 863 doctors relocated from states that the AMA says are nearing a malpractice-insurance crisis.

"People are just flooding out of Midwestern states," said Dr. Diane Schmitz, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist who practices at the new Centura Parker Adventist Hospital southeast of Denver.

Advertisement
&lt;script&gt;&lt;/script&gt;&lt;noscript&gt; &lt;a href="http://xads.zedo.com/ads2/r?n=162;c=571/1;s=373;x=2560;u=j;z=56789123" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" width="250" height="250" src="http://xads.zedo.com/ads2/x?n=162;c=571/1;s=373;x=2560;u=j;z=56789123" alt="Click here"&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/noscript&gt;

When Schmitz went shopping for partners in her expanding practice, she found a wealth of talent eager to relocate. She settled on one physician from Indiana and another from Chicago, one of the cities hardest hit by rapidly rising prices for the insurance that covers doctors against patient lawsuits.

"She just saw her malpractice insurance premiums go from $75,000 to $170,000," said Schmitz, who pays about $25,000 a year for her own malpractice insurance.

"I had countless applications from Illinois, Indiana, New York," she said. "You can't practice medicine with that cloud constantly over you."

Colorado has strict limits on how much money patients can recover from lawsuits - no more than $300,000 in what typically amounts to pain-and-suffering damages. Generally, Colorado doctors pay less than half what their colleagues are charged for malpractice coverage in other states, according to COPIC Insurance, the state's largest medical insurer.

"Even if you get a big (jury) award, the court will cut it back," said Denver malpractice attorney Richard Caschette.

Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected legislation that would have imposed similar nationwide caps on malpractice suits against obstetrician/gynecologists and nurse midwives. The measure was defeated through the efforts of trial lawyers and patients' rights groups, who raised concerns over legal protections for medical device manufacturers.

Congress has twice defeated other major efforts to reform the malpractice system since 1995, said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesman. He said lawmakers must act - otherwise, doctors will continue to close up shop in high-cost states.

The AMA lists 19 "crisis states" where rising malpractice premiums have caused shortages in medical care. Even more states may be so designated later this month, said Mills.

According to the AMA and COPIC Insurance, an undetermined number of U.S. doctors have opted for earlier retirement or moved to lower-cost states to avoid premiums that in some cases are more than a doctor earns in a year.

Among physicians age 50 and older, 28 percent cite malpractice insurance as their greatest frustration, up from 6 percent in 2000, according to Merritt Hawkins and Associates, an Irving, Texas, consulting firm.

Of those physicians who said they plan to retire in the next three years, 74 percent said malpractice insurance costs are a factor.

Insurance premiums are so high in some states that doctors are willing to trade healthy salaries there for the relatively low reimbursement rates in Colorado, where the popularity of managed-care plans has held payments to doctors below national averages. Only California, the state that most doctors left to find jobs in Colorado, has lower reimbursement rates.

Dr. Stephen Barnes, a general surgeon, is a recent transplant. In late December, he moved from Rockford, Ill., to avoid an annual $225,000 malpractice premium.

"I was going to make less than I paid in malpractice," said Barnes. He left behind a 10-year-old practice to start all over again at Parker Adventist Hospital, one of several recently opened Colorado hospitals that are reaping the benefit of high malpractice premiums elsewhere.

"I ran out of Dodge because I could see that I could get stuck there," he said.

Barnes, like every doctor who moves to Colorado from another state, must buy what's known in the insurance industry as "tail coverage." The policy protects against lawsuits that might arise from a doctor's former practice.

Barnes said he paid a one-time, upfront $150,000 premium for his.

Doctors in higher-risk specialties like neurosurgery usually pay more than twice that. It's when these policies get too expensive that doctors find themselves stuck, having little resources to move and lacking the funds to continue practicing.

Barnes says his investment was worth it because his only alternative was to quit practicing medicine altogether.

"It was either sell everything or retire," said Barnes.

The 51-year-old surgeon said he will pay about $50,000 a year for malpractice insurance in Colorado.

<http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/malprac0304g.jpg>
<http://www.denverpost.com/images/icon-uparrow.gif> RETURN TO TOP

<http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/dpo_footer3.gif>
All contents Copyright 2004 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed for any commercial purpose.
Terms of use | Privacy policy

 

[Axon]

Tort reform is the answer, but the question is how do we go about changing things?

 

[Guest]

Tort reform is the answer, but the question is how do we go about changing things?

Notice how things that get "reformed" end up back to the way they were?

:freaked2:

 

[Axon]

Because this system is really the best anyone can think of....

 

[Guest]

Because this system is really the best anyone can think of....

Well, certainly the US medical delivery and financing system could use some assistance and there are many areas to improve and improve greatly.

My point is simply that this is a very very complex set of issues and simplistic approaches like, gang up on the stupid docs will generate no real progress.

Candidly, there is no national agenda for healthcare delivery in the US and so their is precious little we can agree on.

Courses are taught, books are written, change occurs slowly if at all.

:lol: