Is it wrong to deny patients (or their survivors) who have been harmed by medical providers the freedom to collect whatever a jury will award them, or is it better for society as a whole to impose some predictability on the medical malpractice system? That's the question raised by a July 24 editorial in "Newsday" that offers some alternative solutions, rather than just impose arbitrary caps on damage awards. Click on to check out the editorial and offer your take on the crisis.
The editorial, headlined "Don't blame victims for problems with malpractice," while acknowledging that "costly medical malpractice insurance is a real problem," goes on to say that "unfortunately the solution most often touted--limits on jury awards--is bogus."
Ultimately, according to the editorial, "the debate over the rise in the cost of premiums has to get beyond demonizing trial lawyers if solutions are to be found."
They're right! Capping damage awards is an easy way out, but it is anything but fair for those who are injured, disabled or maimed for life--perhaps even killed--by a negligent doctor.
(For the full version of the "Newsday" editorial, click here.)
"Nobody likes being sued. And trial lawyers are a tantalizing target for retribution," according to "Newsday." "But it's the people they represent--those injured due to medical negligence painstakingly proved in a court of law--who would be the victims of dollar limits on damages for pain and suffering.
While conceding "there's no magic bullet to miraculously control the cost of malpractice insurance," the editorial argues that "debilitated patients shouldn't be singled out to bear the brunt of reform, when there are so many other players in this drama with deeper pockets."
The editorial notes that while the size of jury awards is rising, the Center for Justice and Democracy says "payouts from verdicts and settlements have risen no faster than the rate of inflation in medical costs."
"Newsday" concedes that "the cost of insurance is a problem," but goes on to suggest alternative solutions, including:
--A specialized medical court without juries.
--A no-fault system for claims involving neurologically impaired infants.
--A crack-down targeting the licenses of incompetent or chronically negligent doctors.
--Stiff penalties for lawyers who file frivolous suits.
"There are bound to be other, more creative ideas," the editorial concludes. "Unfortunately, they may never be explored if the debate remains fixated on attacking damages awarded to patients for their pain and suffering as the root of all evil."
What do you folks make of all this? Is there a better way to control medical malpractice costs? Or do we have no choice but to pull the rug out from under those who were victimized? What other solutions are there?
Comments (3)
I am not sure if we should categorize caps as "pull[ing] the rug out" from injured parties.
Every cap that I have seen does not limit economic (i.e. actual) damages, but, rather, tries to limit non-economic damages, which are totally subjective.
For example, one can reasonably quantify the present value of medical care or diminution in earning capacity. But how does one quantify loss of consortium or pain and suffering?
It is a tough call. One could not pay me enough if a doctor did something to harm one of my family members.
I think that there needs to be more openess on every side of this discussion, and I think that Newsday does a reasonable job in this regard. As with many things, it is easy to demogogue on both sides.
Posted by James | July 26, 2007 9:18 AM
Posted on July 26, 2007 09:18
The editorial has some good points. The med mal problems have been around since the early 70s, when the Medical Society of New York formed MLMIC because there were no private carriers willing to write in New York.
However, without some caps or guidelines, the sky is the limit. What is a lost finger worth? Make that an arm? One jury may say either is worth $1million. Another jury may say $10 million.
Editorial writers seem to overlook the fact that caps are only for pain and suffering, or “non-economic damages.” Economic damages (medical care, lost wages, etc.) are unlimited.
Two thoughts that I have always had are that both doctors and lawyers should be disciplined more severely for their wrongdoing.
Maybe the new panel in New York to study the problem can come up with some compromises that will work.
Thomas J. Dietz, CPCU
Insurance Marketing Consultants, LLC
PO Box 448
Suite 201 A, Two Depot Plaza
Bedford Hills, NY 10507-0448
Phone: 914-752-4178
Fax: 914-992-9813
Posted by Thomas J. Dietz, CPCU | July 26, 2007 3:58 PM
Posted on July 26, 2007 15:58
This may be rather naive, or perhaps simplistic in nature: Each state should have a special fund set up to fund certain judgments over a certain amount to be determined by the respective amount of the malpractice maximum payout.
These funds would be collected from those students beginning medical school to those well-established physicians. Perhaps a portion of the tuition would be paid to this fund. Possibly, the school would also contribute or set up a trust for all alumni of the medical school.
Physicians who are already paying very high premiums would have a portion of those premiums dedicated for this fund. Perhaps have the carriers contribute to this fund if they want to do business in the respective state.
I realize this does not solve the root problem, but it might make the payout easier to handle without bankrupting the doctor or insurance carrier. These funds would be set up for potential patients subjected to negligent (proven in court) physicians.
Posted by Mitch Palmer, CBC, RHU | August 1, 2007 5:31 PM
Posted on August 1, 2007 17:31