Re: Senate Democrats win fight over medical malpractice awards

Gary Forbis · Gary Forbis

"Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>...
> yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare
> insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the
> democraps

Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won?

While the awards may be huge, it seems to me that by definition they are
fair and just.

I can understand the costs of frivolous suits but how many are there and
if a suit is frivolous then how does a lawyer pocket millions?

Here then is the issue...

If a doctor is engaging in malpractice why is the healthcare insurance
company protecting him or her?

My house has a rider excluding loss of value due to acts of God. Sure
it's protected from fire or theft but not against sliding down the hill.

We are all human and humans make mistakes. I can understand fair and just
compensation for mistakes and the need for insurance against reasonable
mistakes. If the insurance company would pay a fair compensation for
these mistakes without all the fuss then there would be no need for the
lawyers.

I've not had to involve any lawyers in any of my accident settlements,
(even though I've gotten pretty close to getting one on a couple of
occasions.) Auto insurance seems to have figured out that quick and
fair settlements are cheapest for all concerned. Why hasn't the Health
insurance come to this conclusion as well?

Tempest · Tempest

Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>...
> > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare
> > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the
> > democraps
>
> Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won?

But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the
insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or
dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7%
go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are
tried - about 1.3% of all claims.
---------------

Hype outraces facts in malpractice debate

By Peter Eisler, Julie Appleby and Martin
Kasindorf, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm

The symptoms are popping up in state after state: doctors carrying
picket signs, insurers jacking up premiums for malpractice insurance and
patients unable to find care.

The diagnosis offered by doctors, insurers, state legislatures and
President Bush: The nation faces a medical malpractice crisis that is
driving insurance so high that some doctors are leaving their practices.
The causes, they say, are frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards.

Their prescription is tort reform: limits on damages patients can
collect for pain and suffering when they persuade a jury that a doctor
botched their treatment. Bush is pushing for a federal law that would
set a $250,000 cap on damage awards for pain and suffering in states
that don't already have caps.

But a six-week study by USA TODAY finds that while some doctors in
particularly specialties - obstetrics, neurosurgery and some high-risk
surgical fields - face severe problems, most physicians are minimally
affected. Premiums are rising rapidly, but no more than other health
care costs. They represent only a small slice of doctors' expenses. Even
for the hardest-hit specialists, the most severe problems are
concentrated in a handful of states.

Recent reminders that doctors sometimes make egregious mistakes may slow
the momentum of those who want to limit damage awards:

Last month, 17-year-old Jesica Santillan died after a surgeon at Duke
University Hospital implanted a heart and lungs of the wrong blood type
without checking the organs' suitability. The family of the Mexican
teenager has retained a North Carolina medical malpractice lawyer. At a
Minnesota hospital recently, Linda McDougal, 46, of Woodville, Wis.,
received an unnecessary double mastectomy because her biopsy results
were mixed up with those of another woman, who was mistakenly told she
was cancer-free. McDougal is considering whether to file a malpractice
claim, her lawyer says.

These highly publicized medical errors have given ammunition to consumer
groups and trial lawyers who oppose limits on malpractice awards. They
argue that a one-size-fits-all cap of $250,000 would trivialize the
suffering of families victimized by medical mistakes.

In fact, the proposed cure treats only a symptom of the nation's
malpractice ills, and the disease itself, while serious, is no epidemic.

"Some doctors are hard hit," Princeton University economist Uwe
Reinhardt says, "but on average, this problem is overstated."

USA TODAY found:

Some states have rapidly rising malpractice premiums, especially in
obstetrics, neurology and some surgical fields. But, on average, doctors
still spend less on malpractice insurance - 3.2% of their revenue - than
on rent. Large jury awards play a limited role in causing premiums to
rise, despite allegations that greedy trial lawyers and frivolous claims
are to blame. Less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning
verdict at trial, according to insurance industry estimates.

Settlement payouts are up, but that has less to do with
pain-and-suffering claims than with higher awards for what are called
economic damages - the patient's medical bills, lost wages and other
expenses.

Insurance companies are boosting rates partly to make up for price wars
in the 1990s, when competition kept premiums low, and to counter recent
declines in their investment incomes. That investment profit had helped
offset losses from malpractice damage awards and the artificially low
premiums charged to doctors. In some states, medical organizations and
regulators have failed to weed out bad doctors. That has caused
malpractice rates to go up for all.

Under the Bush-backed reform plan, pain-and-suffering awards in the
Santillan and McDougal cases, like those in any state that does not have
its own cap on medical malpractice awards, would be limited to $250,000.
That's roughly the average annual salary for the types of surgeons who
did their operations.

Congress will 'stop and think'

The emotions engendered by the Santillan and McDougal cases were evident
as Congress began debating malpractice reforms at hearings last week.
Some lawmakers suggested that the public attention generated by the
recent medical misconduct cases could weaken the chances for passage of
a damage cap this year.

"Cases like Jesica Santillan's are going to make members of Congress
stop and think about this," says Rep. Diane DeGette, D-Colo., who
opposes the liability cap.

Cases like Santillan's are not that rare: A new study in Pediatrics
magazine finds that medical errors occur in more than one in 10 cases
involving children with complex medical problems.

The proposed $250,000 federal damage cap is modeled on one that
California pioneered in 1975. Russell Kussman, a Los Angeles attorney
who handles medical malpractice cases, says that if Santillan had died
in California after the bungled heart-lung transplant, and not in North
Carolina, her impoverished family "wouldn't have been able to find an
experienced, competent malpractice lawyer to take the case, because of
the $250,000 cap. There's really no economic loss, because the child
died. It's a $250,000 recovery, maximum, and a very complicated case
with a lot of costs."

Opponents of limits on damage awards for pain and suffering note that
cases involving children, retirees and stay-at-home parents would be
most affected because they have no income, making it particularly tough
to prove any damages from loss of income.

Doctors complain that malpractice insurance premiums have soared
nationwide since the 1990s, when they remained flat or dropped.
Government data released Monday by a congressional advisory commission
show the average increase last year was 11.3%. That was the largest
increase in a decade, yet lower than the average annual increase of
11.6% since 1975, according to a report this month by Tillinghast-Towers
Perrin, which provides consulting services to the insurance industry.

Those increases are nearly the same as those seen the past two years in
health-insurance premiums paid by workers and their employers.

Still, doctors practicing certain specialties in some parts of the
country are being hit especially hard. For example, an
obstetrician/gynecologist might pay more than $200,000 a year for
malpractice insurance in Miami, one of the priciest malpractice
insurance markets despite Florida's limits on damages. Nationally,
doctors in that specialty paid an average of $56,546 last year,
according to a survey in Medical Liability Monitor, an independent
newsletter in Chicago.

The forces pushing up malpractice premiums in some states are complex,
requiring a systemic set of solutions, not a single remedy.

"Tort reform has a place, but it needs to be done in coordination with a
number of other things," says James Hurley, who has followed the
liability industry for years as an analyst with Tillinghast-Towers
Perrin. Also needed, Hurley says, are efforts to improve patient safety,
tougher review and discipline procedures for doctors and hospitals and a
closer look at how the past decade's effort to cut costs in health care
may affect the quality of medical care.

But the issue of malpractice insurance has become politicized. And tort
reform, mainly in the form of caps on damages, is the solution promoted
most by doctors, the American Medical Association, some lawmakers,
insurance companies and President Bush.

Doctors in New Jersey, Florida, Mississippi, West Virginia and other
states have staged walkouts, claiming that malpractice insurance rates
are driving them out of business. The insurance industry is mounting
public relations campaigns and expanding its lobbying in Congress and
state legislatures, pushing for limits on jury awards. The American
Medical Association says 18 states are in a malpractice crisis and more
than two dozen others are close.

The Bush administration takes the view of the insurance industry and
doctors. A report issued Monday by the Department of Health and Human
Services argues that patients in some states are having trouble finding
certain types of specialty care, particularly in rural areas where
obstetricians and neurosurgeons have quit doing high-risk procedures
because they say they can't afford the malpractice insurance. But there
is little statistical evidence that more than a tiny percentage of
doctors nationwide are making such decisions, and the report ignores
several independent studies that contradict some of its key findings.

Bush pressed his case for a federal cap on pain and suffering damages
Tuesday in a speech to the American Medical Association.

"There are too many frivolous lawsuits against good doctors," he said.
"If lawsuits are running up the cost of medicine and are driving docs
out of business because practicing medicine is too expensive, we've got
to do something."

More than half the nation's state legislatures also are set to consider
new or tighter caps on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.
Twenty-five states already have some limit. Many of the new bills
include provisions such as forced arbitration and pre-trial screening of
claims that also could weaken the positions of aggrieved patients.

Those plans irk consumer groups, who say that laws to control
malpractice rates should include ways to weed out bad doctors and ensure
that high-risk medical procedures are executed properly. They note that
the Bush-backed proposal for a national cap on damages for pain and
suffering would have a tiny effect on health-insurance premiums paid by
consumers - a drop of less than one-half of a percent, according to an
analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Truth in numbers

Are doctors' premiums too high? Are they climbing too fast? And why are
they going up? The statistics tell a lot:

How much of a doctor's revenue goes to malpractice insurance? A March
2002 government report by MedPAC, a congressional advisory commission,
says doctors, on average, were expected to spend 3.2% of their revenue
on malpractice insurance last year. That compares with 12.4% for staff
salaries, 11.6% for office expenses and 1.9% for medical equipment.
Calculations based on two surveys published by Medical Economics
magazine - widely read by physicians - last year show that OB-GYNs paid
the most for malpractice insurance, as a percentage of their revenue,
6.7%, and cardiologists paid the least, 1.5%.

Why are malpractice insurance costs going up? The problem is
two-pronged, according to research by the National Conference of State
Legislatures. First, insurers are spending more to pay claims - 33% more
from 2000 to 2001. Second, falling interest rates for bonds and stock
prices have weakened insurers' investment income, their main source of
profit. The Physician Insurers Association of America, the lobbying
group for doctor-owned insurance firms, says investment income
contributed 47% to its companies' revenue in 1995, but only 31% in 2001.

All of this is compounded by the fact that insurers slashed premiums in
the 1990s when competition was fierce. Rates were artificially low,
subsidized by investment income. Now, insurers have to boost rates to
stay solvent.

Why are insurers paying so much more in claims? Damage awards are
growing, but not mainly because of bigger jury verdicts.

The number of malpractice verdicts and settlements over $1 million is
way up, according to the Physician Insurers Association of America.
About one in 12 paid claims settles for $1 million or more these days
vs. one in 50 a decade ago. That's a 400% rise.

But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the
insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or
dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7%
go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are
tried - about 1.3% of all claims.

When patients win, the 53 companies in the insurance group pay an
average of $500,000, says Larry Smarr, president of Physician Insurers.
"It's a lottery for trial lawyers. They don't win often, but when they
do, they win big."

Doctors and insurers say the lure of the big win prompts many to file
frivolous suits. But a 1990 Harvard University study suggested that only
one in eight victims of medical negligence ever files a claim. When they
do, it's an uphill fight: Lawyers sometimes have trouble finding a local
doctor who will testify to a colleague's mistakes, attorneys say, and
jurors often are inclined to give a physician the benefit of the doubt.

"If it clearly is not a meritorious case, I would have to be a
blithering idiot to take that case on," says Dan Hodes, a Newport Beach,
Calif., personal-injury lawyer. Plaintiffs' attorneys often must spend
tens of thousands of dollars to prepare a suit, and they risk losing it
all if the case fails and they get no contingency fee.

Are big price increases for malpractice coverage unprecedented? This is
the third time controversy over medical malpractice insurance has peaked
in three decades.

In the 1970s, federal wage-and-price controls limited how much insurers
could raise rates. At the same time, inflation was high and the stock
market was troubled. Carriers cut back on policy-writing or abandoned
the market.

As commercial insurers fled, doctors and hospitals teamed up to form
their own insurance firms. Such provider-owned "mutuals" now control 60%
of the medical malpractice market.

In the mid-'80s, a mix of high interest rates and steep inflation pushed
insurers to raise rates an average of 20% a year. Rates flattened and
declined in the '90s.

Insurers are feeling less pain now "in proportion to what happened in
the 1970s and mid-1980s," says Hurley at Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. But,
he says, doctors are being pinched harder.

The biggest problem for doctors is that the health care market has
changed since the 1980s, making it much more difficult to pass higher
insurance costs along to patients. That's because managed care insurers,
Medicare and Medicaid all limit reimbursements.

There's little evidence that a $250,000 federal cap on
pain-and-suffering awards will be a cure-all for medical malpractice
woes.

The states that seem to be in a malpractice "crisis" all are set to
consider their own statewide version of the damage limits now being
pushed in Congress. The federal plan is intended to serve as a backstop
for states that are unwilling or unable to set damage limits on their
own.

"It's appropriate for the federal government to take action where the
states have failed to take action," says Richard Anderson, an oncologist
and chairman of The Doctors Company, the only physician-owned
malpractice insurer writing policies in all 50 states.

Others doubt that a federal cap would have a significant long-term
effect on doctors' malpractice insurance rates.

That is because a big part of the increase in the cost of claims paid by
insurers is due to growth in economic damages - medical bills, lost
wages and other tangible losses that would not be capped.

"Medical costs are going up 15%-20% a year, and they tend to drive up
medical malpractice awards and settlements," says Jerry Slaughter,
executive director of the Kansas Medical Society.

A report for the New Jersey Medical Society by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin
estimated that a state cap of $250,000 for pain and suffering might
result in 5% to 7% savings for physicians.

According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, states without
a cap on jury awards would see significantly lower premiums for
malpractice insurance if Congress instituted such a nationwide cap. On
average, the study found, such a law would cut premiums in those states
25% to 30%.

However, the Congressional Budget Office study said there would be no
effect in about one-quarter of the states, which already have similar
caps.

At the same time, the congressional study reported that caps on pain and
suffering awards would translate into very small savings - 0.4% - on
overall health insurance premiums for the general public. That's not
much, given that consumer health-insurance premiums are rising by about
15% a year.

Critics say the plan for a federal damage cap is a sop to the medical
and insurance industries - increasingly generous financial backers of
the Republican Party, which controls the White House and both chambers
of Congress. The plan also would cut the incomes of aggressive,
business-suing trial lawyers, who typically donate generously to
Democrats.

Some observers say a cap will deter lawyers from taking legitimate
malpractice suits for poorer patients. Lawyers' fees generally are a
portion of the settlement. Low-income patients with limited claims to
lost wages or other uncapped damages would not have lawyers rushing to
take their cases.

Consumer groups say $250,000 falls far short of what many harmed
patients rightly deserve.

Ways to reduce malpractice

Besides damage caps, other ideas to lower malpractice costs include:

Improve medical care to reduce errors. A 1999 study by the Institute of
Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, blamed medical
mistakes for the deaths of 44,000 to 98,000 hospitalized Americans each
year.

Suggested steps included mandatory or voluntary reporting of problems so
"fixes" can be found; increased use of computers for filling
prescriptions to reduce handwriting errors; better staffing at
hospitals; and greater effort to discipline bad doctors.

Create outside-the-courts compensation programs to reduce medical
malpractice cases. The National Academy of Sciences recommends such an
approach, saying it could help physicians who admit mistakes. Those
doctors would be rewarded with limits on pain and suffering damages.
Change the way doctors, hospitals and insurers handle medical care gone
awry. One Colorado malpractice insurer, for example, works with patients
who suffer "adverse events," paying for any additional medical care they
need and covering their lost wages. The firm says its effort has reduced
claims filed against its doctors.

"I would not say it's a crisis," says James Foreman, a managing director
at Towers Perrin, an employee benefits consulting firm. "I have
sympathy, but all of us are seeing increases in insurance, whether
malpractice, health or homeowners'. Doctors are jumping on the
bandwagon. Yet most are seeing an increase in their bottom-line pay. How
many other businesses can say that today?"

> While the awards may be huge, it seems to me that by definition they are
> fair and just.
>
> I can understand the costs of frivolous suits but how many are there and
> if a suit is frivolous then how does a lawyer pocket millions?
>
> Here then is the issue...
>
> If a doctor is engaging in malpractice why is the healthcare insurance
> company protecting him or her?
>
> My house has a rider excluding loss of value due to acts of God. Sure
> it's protected from fire or theft but not against sliding down the hill.
>
> We are all human and humans make mistakes. I can understand fair and just
> compensation for mistakes and the need for insurance against reasonable
> mistakes. If the insurance company would pay a fair compensation for
> these mistakes without all the fuss then there would be no need for the
> lawyers.
>
> I've not had to involve any lawyers in any of my accident settlements,
> (even though I've gotten pretty close to getting one on a couple of
> occasions.) Auto insurance seems to have figured out that quick and
> fair settlements are cheapest for all concerned. Why hasn't the Health
> insurance come to this conclusion as well?

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Teddy Roosevelt

Tempest · Tempest

Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>...
> > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare
> > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the
> > democraps
>
> Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won?

State figures blur malpractice 'crisis'
Analysis of Florida database finds lawsuits in decline and few payouts
over $250,000

By P. Douglas Filaroski
Times-Union staff writer

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/st...12390964.shtml

Florida doctors rushed out a news release after a recent poll showed
public support for capping malpractice awards.

It said people blamed Florida's "lawsuit lottery system" and "frivolous
lawsuits" for the rapid rise of malpractice insurance rates driving
doctors out of the state.

Doctors claimed an important public relations victory.

"The public is tired of a few trial lawyers getting rich off the
system," Florida Medical Association CEO Sandra Mortham said.

Within weeks, Mortham was leading a rally in Tallahassee where thousands
of doctors waved signs: "We Have A Medical Emergency!"

A banner over Mortham outside the Capitol said simply: "$250,000 Cap =
Lower Health Care Costs" -- a belief Gov. Jeb Bush is pitching to
legislators in the session's final week.

Bush is hoping legislators buy it. If not, dozens of Jacksonville-area
doctors are threatening to cancel surgeries as of Friday.

The cap debate is often framed as an uncomplicated, stop-gap measure --
a cure for runaway malpractice awards.

But a Times-Union review of malpractice cases since 1999 casts a
different and more complex picture.

The analysis of the state's database indicates there doesn't appear to
be a "crisis" in terms of rising lawsuits, frivolous claims or excessive
number of high payouts above $250,000 -- "runaway verdicts" as Bush
calls them.

Rather, the Florida Department of Financial Services data crosschecked
with analysis of the National Practitioner Data Bank showed:

Malpractice lawsuits have been in decline in recent years and rarely
involve temporary minor injuries. The majority involve permanent and
serious injuries.

Nearly all have been settled outside courtrooms.

And only about 1 in 6 result in payments more than $250,000 for pain and
suffering. Insurance companies would have saved about 24 percent had
there been caps.

"That falls under the category of common misconception," said Kevin
Bingham, who studies medical liability insurance for the American
Academy of Actuaries in Washington.

Meanwhile, few argue that doctors' insurance rates are climbing fast.
Annual premiums for 44 Jacksonville obstetricians rose from $40,000 to
$100,000, in less than two years according to Bush's task force, which
also said patient access will suffer if doctors curtail or shut down
altogether.

Bush and Florida doctors say capping payments at $250,000 for
non-economic damages -- not lost wages or medical bills -- would save
insurers money and halt rising premiums.

The $250,000 cap would directly limit amounts juries could award
plaintiffs for pain and suffering, but also effectively cap what
insurers would pay in settlements after they know juries would be
restricted.

Opponents, such as Florida trial lawyers, say caps unfairly limit
compensation for severely injured patients or families who lose loved
ones. Senate President Jim King, R-Jacksonville, says caps are an
unproven fix.

"Others have continued to fight solely for caps ... which would
ultimately hurt the victims," King said.

Barring a special extended Legislative session, which now appears
likely, lawmakers have less than a week to hammer out their differences
between the pro-cap House and King's anti-cap Senate.

Few lawsuits pay big

Speaking before Congress, which also is considering caps, a colleague of
Bingham's in the Academy of Actuaries said reform needs to involve more
than caps.

Lawsuit losses are only one reason annual premiums have risen two- and
threefold for some Florida doctors, and high payouts occur three times
less often as low ones.

The analysis of data, reported to the state by insurance companies,
shows a majority of lawsuits (57.3 percent) was settled with
non-economic damages between $0 and $50,000 and 84 percent came in under
$250,000.

Lawsuits have decreased from a peak of about 2,000 annually in the
mid-1980s to fewer than 1,000 since 1997.

As for "runaway verdicts," 98.3 percent of cases were settled between
plaintiffs, defendants and insurers -- without facing a judge or jury.

A third of the cases involved death; another 42 percent involved
permanent injuries, calling into question "frivolous lawsuits" as
driving doctors away.

About 16 percent resulted in awards of more than $250,000. Total
malpractice payouts equaled $3.2 billion. That would have been $780
million less if a cap were in place. But even that kind of savings would
not "guarantee a reduction in premiums," Bingham said.

Stabilizing rates

Premiums also are affected by insurers' investments, the amount past
losses exceeded money set aside for them, and competitive forces,
Bingham said.

In the late 1980s, rates did not decline substantially after the state
enacted Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation
program.

The no-fault compensation plan settles the vast majority of
birth-related injuries with money paid through a fund by hospitals and
doctors, not insurers.

"The problem is you have some savings in one area, but you suffer
greater losses elsewhere. It's hard to predict," Bingham said in
explaining how rates work.

Insurers have been reporting investment losses and higher than expected
dents in their loss reserves.

Florida is one of 18 states, including Georgia, that the American
Medical Association lists as being in a malpractice crisis.

University of Georgia professor Robert Hoyt, who leads the school's
insurance department, said the difference between crisis states and
others might be how well they manage lawyers and tort reform.

"It's all part of the propensity to sue," Hoyt said. "But it's more than
caps. It's much more complex than that."

Evidence of the squeeze on insurers is the number in Florida offering
malpractice policies, down from a high of 66 in 1999 to five.

Florida Professionals Insurance Co. President Robert White said caps
would deter lawyers from bringing some new lawsuits to court in the
first place. Cases that are expensive to present wouldn't be as
worthwhile to pursue knowing there are caps.

Miguel Machado, St. Johns County's only neurosurgeon, said his carrier
stopped offering policies in Florida. That leaves Machado seeking a
self-insurance plan that would increase his costs from $60,000 to
$180,000 a year.

"I'm looking at alternatives," Machado said when county physicians
conducted their own walkout recently. "It may be to leave town."

Not everyone in Florida sides with Bush, the doctors, and the Florida
House on the solution, however.

The Florida Senate bypassed the House's caps for a bill that would force
insurers to roll back premiums and grant some immunity to emergency room
doctors for risky procedures.

With a week to go in the legislative session -- one that could end with
a showdown between the House and Senate -- The Florida Center for Public
Policy and Leadership at the University of North Florida issued a
52-page report last week that undercut caps as a cure-all.

"There is no real link between caps and premiums," said George Perkins,
who co-authored the report with former state university chancellor Adam
Herbert.

"Caps might help, but it may not be enough," said Perkins, whose report
recommended combining caps with more insurance regulation, better
policing of doctors, and patients sharing risk for elective procedures.

Authors disagreed that caps passed in the late 1970s in California
stabilized that state's rates, agreeing with those who say Proposition
103 -- an insurance reform package passed in the 1980s -- had a bigger
effect.

"Thirteen years after caps were enacted in California, premiums had
increased 450 percent, and then 13 years after that law (Prop 103)
premiums had decreased 2 percent."

Danielle J. Walters of Californians Allied for Patient Protection said
caps clearly made the difference. She said rates didn't start to come
down right away because caps were held up by court challenges until
about the time Prop 103 passed.

"We think this is an argument based on coincidence, rather than
evidence," Walters said recently.

She attributed California's comparatively small 150 percent increase in
the past two decades to caps.

What's pain worth?

But James Bostwick, a top trial lawyer in San Francisco, said caps are
suspect regulatory tools and cruel limits on patient compensation.

Since California passed its cap, Bostwick said his firm has not been
able to afford to represent injured children. Because children have not
been in the workforce, actual damages for lost wages do not exist.

He said lawyers are reluctant to gamble on too many cases in which the
most a jury could award is $250,000, a figure no one seems to know the
origin of. A law firm can spend tens, or even hundreds of thousands on a
case, and yield less with its 30 percent cut of the award.

At a health writers' conference, Bostwick held up picture after picture
of young people whose families allege injuries and even death from
malpractice.

"That's a 250 case," he said of a youngster who died during a procedure.
"Can't afford to do it. And that's a shame."

In Northeast Florida, a review of the state's database showed two of the
top three pain and suffering awards since 1999 involved babies.

One baby's mother died from failure to diagnose the mother's heart
condition, and another baby suffered a lifelong disability after a
physician's assistant failed to detect bleeding in the brain despite a
low body temperature.

The top award of $7.5 million involved the case of 51-year-old Ethel Mae
Vaughn whose skin cancer on her big left toe went undiagnosed until the
prognosis was fatal. The defendant was Patrick P. Bunyi, a family
physician at Oceanway Medical Center in Jacksonville.

The University of North Florida report says caps might be unfair to the
few patients with the most extensive injuries or those with low or
no income.

"That is an important ethical consideration," Perkins said.

The report asks legislators to consider a tougher system for
disciplining doctors. A total of 807 Florida doctors amid the state's
several thousand have been sued between three and 32 times. A former
Jacksonville gynecologist, Robert C. Brown Jr., had been allowed to keep
his license despite being sued 32 times before pleading guilty in 1998
to drugs-for-sex charges.

The report also said lawmakers should consider tighter regulation of
insurers and limiting the rights of plaintiffs involved in elective or
cosmetic surgeries.

One hurdle not often mentioned, according to authors, are the
constitutional questions surrounding caps. Caps have been ruled illegal
in some states.

The center plans to do a more in-depth study on the legality of such a
proposal led by Florida State University law professor Talbot "Sandy"
D'Alemberte.

Most discussions about caps focused on big awards and frivolous
lawsuits, and overestimate their effect on insurers' bottom lines,
Perkins said.

"It's always the sensational stuff. The $5 million to $6 million
awards," Perkins said. "The perception is that they are all like that.
They are not ... I think most people would be very surprised about that
fact."

> While the awards may be huge, it seems to me that by definition they are
> fair and just.
>
> I can understand the costs of frivolous suits but how many are there and
> if a suit is frivolous then how does a lawyer pocket millions?
>
> Here then is the issue...
>
> If a doctor is engaging in malpractice why is the healthcare insurance
> company protecting him or her?
>
> My house has a rider excluding loss of value due to acts of God. Sure
> it's protected from fire or theft but not against sliding down the hill.
>
> We are all human and humans make mistakes. I can understand fair and just
> compensation for mistakes and the need for insurance against reasonable
> mistakes. If the insurance company would pay a fair compensation for
> these mistakes without all the fuss then there would be no need for the
> lawyers.
>
> I've not had to involve any lawyers in any of my accident settlements,
> (even though I've gotten pretty close to getting one on a couple of
> occasions.) Auto insurance seems to have figured out that quick and
> fair settlements are cheapest for all concerned. Why hasn't the Health
> insurance come to this conclusion as well?

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Teddy Roosevelt

Alan McIntire · Alan McIntire

Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CCC36.395C0756@hotmail.com>...
> Gary Forbis wrote:
> >
> > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare
> > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the
> > > democraps
> >
> > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won?
>
> But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the
> insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or
> dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7%
> go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are
> tried - about 1.3% of all claims.
>
So from your figures, neglecting the cases that go to trial, the
average cost per lawsuit is about $100,000.
Even if the payout is zero, there's still the cost of lawyers to
defend the malpractice suit. Perhaps a "loser pays all court costs"
law would help take care of this problem.-A.McIntire

Gary Forbis · Gary Forbis

mcintire4@earthlink.net (Alan McIntire) wrote in message news:<48658b64.0307101628.7948601@posting.google.c om>...
> Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CCC36.395C0756@hotmail.com>...
> > Gary Forbis wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare
> > > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the
> > > > democraps
> > >
> > > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won?
> >
> > But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the
> > insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or
> > dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7%
> > go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are
> > tried - about 1.3% of all claims.
> >
> So from your figures, neglecting the cases that go to trial, the
> average cost per lawsuit is about $100,000.
> Even if the payout is zero, there's still the cost of lawyers to
> defend the malpractice suit. Perhaps a "loser pays all court costs"
> law would help take care of this problem.-A.McIntire

I'm inclined to agree but I have some reservations.

There's the risk to reward ratio and deep pockets.

By way of an example...

Both Craps and Blackjack are near 50-50 games. The house has a
slight advantage. The only real problem for the house is they
sometimes loose in the short run. In order to counter this they
need sufficiently deep pockets to reach the long run and weather
temporary losses.

For an average joe $100,000 in court costs is a big deal even if
one is pretty sure one's cause is just. Suppose one's belief is
a 75% chance of winning, well then, there's a 25% chance of losing
and at that risking $100,000 may be too great.

The solution is for the house to have deeper pockets than the
player. There needs to be some resource pooling and open-eyed
risk assessment going in so those with just causes can reduce
their individual risks.

I know this is a bit disjointed. I'll have to think abit to
clean it up. I'm just stream of consciousness right now.

NoSurrender@never.net · NoSurrender@never.net

On 10 Jul 2003 17:28:28 -0700, mcintire4@earthlink.net (Alan McIntire)
wrote:

>Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CCC36.395C0756@hotmail.com>...
>> Gary Forbis wrote:
>> >
>> > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare
>> > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the
>> > > democraps
>> >
>> > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won?
>>
>> But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the
>> insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or
>> dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7%
>> go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are
>> tried - about 1.3% of all claims.
>>
> So from your figures, neglecting the cases that go to trial, the
>average cost per lawsuit is about $100,000.
> Even if the payout is zero, there's still the cost of lawyers to
>defend the malpractice suit. Perhaps a "loser pays all court costs"
>law would help take care of this problem.-A.McIntire

Always thought that was only just.

Cheerio,

Dennis, Proud American, Irish

Gary Forbis	[1] Posted by Gary Forbis 07-09-2003, 10:37 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>... > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the > democraps Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won? While the awards may be huge, it seems to me that by definition they are fair and just. I can understand the costs of frivolous suits but how many are there and if a suit is frivolous then how does a lawyer pocket millions? Here then is the issue... If a doctor is engaging in malpractice why is the healthcare insurance company protecting him or her? My house has a rider excluding loss of value due to acts of God. Sure it's protected from fire or theft but not against sliding down the hill. We are all human and humans make mistakes. I can understand fair and just compensation for mistakes and the need for insurance against reasonable mistakes. If the insurance company would pay a fair compensation for these mistakes without all the fuss then there would be no need for the lawyers. I've not had to involve any lawyers in any of my accident settlements, (even though I've gotten pretty close to getting one on a couple of occasions.) Auto insurance seems to have figured out that quick and fair settlements are cheapest for all concerned. Why hasn't the Health insurance come to this conclusion as well?
Posts: n/a

Tempest	[2] Posted by Tempest 07-09-2003, 11:13 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote Gary Forbis wrote: > > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>... > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the > > democraps > > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won? But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7% go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are tried - about 1.3% of all claims. --------------- Hype outraces facts in malpractice debate By Peter Eisler, Julie Appleby and Martin Kasindorf, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ce-cover_x.htm The symptoms are popping up in state after state: doctors carrying picket signs, insurers jacking up premiums for malpractice insurance and patients unable to find care. The diagnosis offered by doctors, insurers, state legislatures and President Bush: The nation faces a medical malpractice crisis that is driving insurance so high that some doctors are leaving their practices. The causes, they say, are frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards. Their prescription is tort reform: limits on damages patients can collect for pain and suffering when they persuade a jury that a doctor botched their treatment. Bush is pushing for a federal law that would set a $250,000 cap on damage awards for pain and suffering in states that don't already have caps. But a six-week study by USA TODAY finds that while some doctors in particularly specialties - obstetrics, neurosurgery and some high-risk surgical fields - face severe problems, most physicians are minimally affected. Premiums are rising rapidly, but no more than other health care costs. They represent only a small slice of doctors' expenses. Even for the hardest-hit specialists, the most severe problems are concentrated in a handful of states. Recent reminders that doctors sometimes make egregious mistakes may slow the momentum of those who want to limit damage awards: Last month, 17-year-old Jesica Santillan died after a surgeon at Duke University Hospital implanted a heart and lungs of the wrong blood type without checking the organs' suitability. The family of the Mexican teenager has retained a North Carolina medical malpractice lawyer. At a Minnesota hospital recently, Linda McDougal, 46, of Woodville, Wis., received an unnecessary double mastectomy because her biopsy results were mixed up with those of another woman, who was mistakenly told she was cancer-free. McDougal is considering whether to file a malpractice claim, her lawyer says. These highly publicized medical errors have given ammunition to consumer groups and trial lawyers who oppose limits on malpractice awards. They argue that a one-size-fits-all cap of $250,000 would trivialize the suffering of families victimized by medical mistakes. In fact, the proposed cure treats only a symptom of the nation's malpractice ills, and the disease itself, while serious, is no epidemic. "Some doctors are hard hit," Princeton University economist Uwe Reinhardt says, "but on average, this problem is overstated." USA TODAY found: Some states have rapidly rising malpractice premiums, especially in obstetrics, neurology and some surgical fields. But, on average, doctors still spend less on malpractice insurance - 3.2% of their revenue - than on rent. Large jury awards play a limited role in causing premiums to rise, despite allegations that greedy trial lawyers and frivolous claims are to blame. Less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning verdict at trial, according to insurance industry estimates. Settlement payouts are up, but that has less to do with pain-and-suffering claims than with higher awards for what are called economic damages - the patient's medical bills, lost wages and other expenses. Insurance companies are boosting rates partly to make up for price wars in the 1990s, when competition kept premiums low, and to counter recent declines in their investment incomes. That investment profit had helped offset losses from malpractice damage awards and the artificially low premiums charged to doctors. In some states, medical organizations and regulators have failed to weed out bad doctors. That has caused malpractice rates to go up for all. Under the Bush-backed reform plan, pain-and-suffering awards in the Santillan and McDougal cases, like those in any state that does not have its own cap on medical malpractice awards, would be limited to $250,000. That's roughly the average annual salary for the types of surgeons who did their operations. Congress will 'stop and think' The emotions engendered by the Santillan and McDougal cases were evident as Congress began debating malpractice reforms at hearings last week. Some lawmakers suggested that the public attention generated by the recent medical misconduct cases could weaken the chances for passage of a damage cap this year. "Cases like Jesica Santillan's are going to make members of Congress stop and think about this," says Rep. Diane DeGette, D-Colo., who opposes the liability cap. Cases like Santillan's are not that rare: A new study in Pediatrics magazine finds that medical errors occur in more than one in 10 cases involving children with complex medical problems. The proposed $250,000 federal damage cap is modeled on one that California pioneered in 1975. Russell Kussman, a Los Angeles attorney who handles medical malpractice cases, says that if Santillan had died in California after the bungled heart-lung transplant, and not in North Carolina, her impoverished family "wouldn't have been able to find an experienced, competent malpractice lawyer to take the case, because of the $250,000 cap. There's really no economic loss, because the child died. It's a $250,000 recovery, maximum, and a very complicated case with a lot of costs." Opponents of limits on damage awards for pain and suffering note that cases involving children, retirees and stay-at-home parents would be most affected because they have no income, making it particularly tough to prove any damages from loss of income. Doctors complain that malpractice insurance premiums have soared nationwide since the 1990s, when they remained flat or dropped. Government data released Monday by a congressional advisory commission show the average increase last year was 11.3%. That was the largest increase in a decade, yet lower than the average annual increase of 11.6% since 1975, according to a report this month by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, which provides consulting services to the insurance industry. Those increases are nearly the same as those seen the past two years in health-insurance premiums paid by workers and their employers. Still, doctors practicing certain specialties in some parts of the country are being hit especially hard. For example, an obstetrician/gynecologist might pay more than $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance in Miami, one of the priciest malpractice insurance markets despite Florida's limits on damages. Nationally, doctors in that specialty paid an average of $56,546 last year, according to a survey in Medical Liability Monitor, an independent newsletter in Chicago. The forces pushing up malpractice premiums in some states are complex, requiring a systemic set of solutions, not a single remedy. "Tort reform has a place, but it needs to be done in coordination with a number of other things," says James Hurley, who has followed the liability industry for years as an analyst with Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. Also needed, Hurley says, are efforts to improve patient safety, tougher review and discipline procedures for doctors and hospitals and a closer look at how the past decade's effort to cut costs in health care may affect the quality of medical care. But the issue of malpractice insurance has become politicized. And tort reform, mainly in the form of caps on damages, is the solution promoted most by doctors, the American Medical Association, some lawmakers, insurance companies and President Bush. Doctors in New Jersey, Florida, Mississippi, West Virginia and other states have staged walkouts, claiming that malpractice insurance rates are driving them out of business. The insurance industry is mounting public relations campaigns and expanding its lobbying in Congress and state legislatures, pushing for limits on jury awards. The American Medical Association says 18 states are in a malpractice crisis and more than two dozen others are close. The Bush administration takes the view of the insurance industry and doctors. A report issued Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services argues that patients in some states are having trouble finding certain types of specialty care, particularly in rural areas where obstetricians and neurosurgeons have quit doing high-risk procedures because they say they can't afford the malpractice insurance. But there is little statistical evidence that more than a tiny percentage of doctors nationwide are making such decisions, and the report ignores several independent studies that contradict some of its key findings. Bush pressed his case for a federal cap on pain and suffering damages Tuesday in a speech to the American Medical Association. "There are too many frivolous lawsuits against good doctors," he said. "If lawsuits are running up the cost of medicine and are driving docs out of business because practicing medicine is too expensive, we've got to do something." More than half the nation's state legislatures also are set to consider new or tighter caps on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. Twenty-five states already have some limit. Many of the new bills include provisions such as forced arbitration and pre-trial screening of claims that also could weaken the positions of aggrieved patients. Those plans irk consumer groups, who say that laws to control malpractice rates should include ways to weed out bad doctors and ensure that high-risk medical procedures are executed properly. They note that the Bush-backed proposal for a national cap on damages for pain and suffering would have a tiny effect on health-insurance premiums paid by consumers - a drop of less than one-half of a percent, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Truth in numbers Are doctors' premiums too high? Are they climbing too fast? And why are they going up? The statistics tell a lot: How much of a doctor's revenue goes to malpractice insurance? A March 2002 government report by MedPAC, a congressional advisory commission, says doctors, on average, were expected to spend 3.2% of their revenue on malpractice insurance last year. That compares with 12.4% for staff salaries, 11.6% for office expenses and 1.9% for medical equipment. Calculations based on two surveys published by Medical Economics magazine - widely read by physicians - last year show that OB-GYNs paid the most for malpractice insurance, as a percentage of their revenue, 6.7%, and cardiologists paid the least, 1.5%. Why are malpractice insurance costs going up? The problem is two-pronged, according to research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. First, insurers are spending more to pay claims - 33% more from 2000 to 2001. Second, falling interest rates for bonds and stock prices have weakened insurers' investment income, their main source of profit. The Physician Insurers Association of America, the lobbying group for doctor-owned insurance firms, says investment income contributed 47% to its companies' revenue in 1995, but only 31% in 2001. All of this is compounded by the fact that insurers slashed premiums in the 1990s when competition was fierce. Rates were artificially low, subsidized by investment income. Now, insurers have to boost rates to stay solvent. Why are insurers paying so much more in claims? Damage awards are growing, but not mainly because of bigger jury verdicts. The number of malpractice verdicts and settlements over $1 million is way up, according to the Physician Insurers Association of America. About one in 12 paid claims settles for $1 million or more these days vs. one in 50 a decade ago. That's a 400% rise. But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7% go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are tried - about 1.3% of all claims. When patients win, the 53 companies in the insurance group pay an average of $500,000, says Larry Smarr, president of Physician Insurers. "It's a lottery for trial lawyers. They don't win often, but when they do, they win big." Doctors and insurers say the lure of the big win prompts many to file frivolous suits. But a 1990 Harvard University study suggested that only one in eight victims of medical negligence ever files a claim. When they do, it's an uphill fight: Lawyers sometimes have trouble finding a local doctor who will testify to a colleague's mistakes, attorneys say, and jurors often are inclined to give a physician the benefit of the doubt. "If it clearly is not a meritorious case, I would have to be a blithering idiot to take that case on," says Dan Hodes, a Newport Beach, Calif., personal-injury lawyer. Plaintiffs' attorneys often must spend tens of thousands of dollars to prepare a suit, and they risk losing it all if the case fails and they get no contingency fee. Are big price increases for malpractice coverage unprecedented? This is the third time controversy over medical malpractice insurance has peaked in three decades. In the 1970s, federal wage-and-price controls limited how much insurers could raise rates. At the same time, inflation was high and the stock market was troubled. Carriers cut back on policy-writing or abandoned the market. As commercial insurers fled, doctors and hospitals teamed up to form their own insurance firms. Such provider-owned "mutuals" now control 60% of the medical malpractice market. In the mid-'80s, a mix of high interest rates and steep inflation pushed insurers to raise rates an average of 20% a year. Rates flattened and declined in the '90s. Insurers are feeling less pain now "in proportion to what happened in the 1970s and mid-1980s," says Hurley at Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. But, he says, doctors are being pinched harder. The biggest problem for doctors is that the health care market has changed since the 1980s, making it much more difficult to pass higher insurance costs along to patients. That's because managed care insurers, Medicare and Medicaid all limit reimbursements. There's little evidence that a $250,000 federal cap on pain-and-suffering awards will be a cure-all for medical malpractice woes. The states that seem to be in a malpractice "crisis" all are set to consider their own statewide version of the damage limits now being pushed in Congress. The federal plan is intended to serve as a backstop for states that are unwilling or unable to set damage limits on their own. "It's appropriate for the federal government to take action where the states have failed to take action," says Richard Anderson, an oncologist and chairman of The Doctors Company, the only physician-owned malpractice insurer writing policies in all 50 states. Others doubt that a federal cap would have a significant long-term effect on doctors' malpractice insurance rates. That is because a big part of the increase in the cost of claims paid by insurers is due to growth in economic damages - medical bills, lost wages and other tangible losses that would not be capped. "Medical costs are going up 15%-20% a year, and they tend to drive up medical malpractice awards and settlements," says Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society. A report for the New Jersey Medical Society by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin estimated that a state cap of $250,000 for pain and suffering might result in 5% to 7% savings for physicians. According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, states without a cap on jury awards would see significantly lower premiums for malpractice insurance if Congress instituted such a nationwide cap. On average, the study found, such a law would cut premiums in those states 25% to 30%. However, the Congressional Budget Office study said there would be no effect in about one-quarter of the states, which already have similar caps. At the same time, the congressional study reported that caps on pain and suffering awards would translate into very small savings - 0.4% - on overall health insurance premiums for the general public. That's not much, given that consumer health-insurance premiums are rising by about 15% a year. Critics say the plan for a federal damage cap is a sop to the medical and insurance industries - increasingly generous financial backers of the Republican Party, which controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. The plan also would cut the incomes of aggressive, business-suing trial lawyers, who typically donate generously to Democrats. Some observers say a cap will deter lawyers from taking legitimate malpractice suits for poorer patients. Lawyers' fees generally are a portion of the settlement. Low-income patients with limited claims to lost wages or other uncapped damages would not have lawyers rushing to take their cases. Consumer groups say $250,000 falls far short of what many harmed patients rightly deserve. Ways to reduce malpractice Besides damage caps, other ideas to lower malpractice costs include: Improve medical care to reduce errors. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, blamed medical mistakes for the deaths of 44,000 to 98,000 hospitalized Americans each year. Suggested steps included mandatory or voluntary reporting of problems so "fixes" can be found; increased use of computers for filling prescriptions to reduce handwriting errors; better staffing at hospitals; and greater effort to discipline bad doctors. Create outside-the-courts compensation programs to reduce medical malpractice cases. The National Academy of Sciences recommends such an approach, saying it could help physicians who admit mistakes. Those doctors would be rewarded with limits on pain and suffering damages. Change the way doctors, hospitals and insurers handle medical care gone awry. One Colorado malpractice insurer, for example, works with patients who suffer "adverse events," paying for any additional medical care they need and covering their lost wages. The firm says its effort has reduced claims filed against its doctors. "I would not say it's a crisis," says James Foreman, a managing director at Towers Perrin, an employee benefits consulting firm. "I have sympathy, but all of us are seeing increases in insurance, whether malpractice, health or homeowners'. Doctors are jumping on the bandwagon. Yet most are seeing an increase in their bottom-line pay. How many other businesses can say that today?" > While the awards may be huge, it seems to me that by definition they are > fair and just. > > I can understand the costs of frivolous suits but how many are there and > if a suit is frivolous then how does a lawyer pocket millions? > > Here then is the issue... > > If a doctor is engaging in malpractice why is the healthcare insurance > company protecting him or her? > > My house has a rider excluding loss of value due to acts of God. Sure > it's protected from fire or theft but not against sliding down the hill. > > We are all human and humans make mistakes. I can understand fair and just > compensation for mistakes and the need for insurance against reasonable > mistakes. If the insurance company would pay a fair compensation for > these mistakes without all the fuss then there would be no need for the > lawyers. > > I've not had to involve any lawyers in any of my accident settlements, > (even though I've gotten pretty close to getting one on a couple of > occasions.) Auto insurance seems to have figured out that quick and > fair settlements are cheapest for all concerned. Why hasn't the Health > insurance come to this conclusion as well? -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
Posts: n/a

Tempest	[3] Posted by Tempest 07-09-2003, 11:16 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote Gary Forbis wrote: > > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>... > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the > > democraps > > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won? State figures blur malpractice 'crisis' Analysis of Florida database finds lawsuits in decline and few payouts over $250,000 By P. Douglas Filaroski Times-Union staff writer http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/st...12390964.shtml Florida doctors rushed out a news release after a recent poll showed public support for capping malpractice awards. It said people blamed Florida's "lawsuit lottery system" and "frivolous lawsuits" for the rapid rise of malpractice insurance rates driving doctors out of the state. Doctors claimed an important public relations victory. "The public is tired of a few trial lawyers getting rich off the system," Florida Medical Association CEO Sandra Mortham said. Within weeks, Mortham was leading a rally in Tallahassee where thousands of doctors waved signs: "We Have A Medical Emergency!" A banner over Mortham outside the Capitol said simply: "$250,000 Cap = Lower Health Care Costs" -- a belief Gov. Jeb Bush is pitching to legislators in the session's final week. Bush is hoping legislators buy it. If not, dozens of Jacksonville-area doctors are threatening to cancel surgeries as of Friday. The cap debate is often framed as an uncomplicated, stop-gap measure -- a cure for runaway malpractice awards. But a Times-Union review of malpractice cases since 1999 casts a different and more complex picture. The analysis of the state's database indicates there doesn't appear to be a "crisis" in terms of rising lawsuits, frivolous claims or excessive number of high payouts above $250,000 -- "runaway verdicts" as Bush calls them. Rather, the Florida Department of Financial Services data crosschecked with analysis of the National Practitioner Data Bank showed: Malpractice lawsuits have been in decline in recent years and rarely involve temporary minor injuries. The majority involve permanent and serious injuries. Nearly all have been settled outside courtrooms. And only about 1 in 6 result in payments more than $250,000 for pain and suffering. Insurance companies would have saved about 24 percent had there been caps. "That falls under the category of common misconception," said Kevin Bingham, who studies medical liability insurance for the American Academy of Actuaries in Washington. Meanwhile, few argue that doctors' insurance rates are climbing fast. Annual premiums for 44 Jacksonville obstetricians rose from $40,000 to $100,000, in less than two years according to Bush's task force, which also said patient access will suffer if doctors curtail or shut down altogether. Bush and Florida doctors say capping payments at $250,000 for non-economic damages -- not lost wages or medical bills -- would save insurers money and halt rising premiums. The $250,000 cap would directly limit amounts juries could award plaintiffs for pain and suffering, but also effectively cap what insurers would pay in settlements after they know juries would be restricted. Opponents, such as Florida trial lawyers, say caps unfairly limit compensation for severely injured patients or families who lose loved ones. Senate President Jim King, R-Jacksonville, says caps are an unproven fix. "Others have continued to fight solely for caps ... which would ultimately hurt the victims," King said. Barring a special extended Legislative session, which now appears likely, lawmakers have less than a week to hammer out their differences between the pro-cap House and King's anti-cap Senate. Few lawsuits pay big Speaking before Congress, which also is considering caps, a colleague of Bingham's in the Academy of Actuaries said reform needs to involve more than caps. Lawsuit losses are only one reason annual premiums have risen two- and threefold for some Florida doctors, and high payouts occur three times less often as low ones. The analysis of data, reported to the state by insurance companies, shows a majority of lawsuits (57.3 percent) was settled with non-economic damages between $0 and $50,000 and 84 percent came in under $250,000. Lawsuits have decreased from a peak of about 2,000 annually in the mid-1980s to fewer than 1,000 since 1997. As for "runaway verdicts," 98.3 percent of cases were settled between plaintiffs, defendants and insurers -- without facing a judge or jury. A third of the cases involved death; another 42 percent involved permanent injuries, calling into question "frivolous lawsuits" as driving doctors away. About 16 percent resulted in awards of more than $250,000. Total malpractice payouts equaled $3.2 billion. That would have been $780 million less if a cap were in place. But even that kind of savings would not "guarantee a reduction in premiums," Bingham said. Stabilizing rates Premiums also are affected by insurers' investments, the amount past losses exceeded money set aside for them, and competitive forces, Bingham said. In the late 1980s, rates did not decline substantially after the state enacted Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation program. The no-fault compensation plan settles the vast majority of birth-related injuries with money paid through a fund by hospitals and doctors, not insurers. "The problem is you have some savings in one area, but you suffer greater losses elsewhere. It's hard to predict," Bingham said in explaining how rates work. Insurers have been reporting investment losses and higher than expected dents in their loss reserves. Florida is one of 18 states, including Georgia, that the American Medical Association lists as being in a malpractice crisis. University of Georgia professor Robert Hoyt, who leads the school's insurance department, said the difference between crisis states and others might be how well they manage lawyers and tort reform. "It's all part of the propensity to sue," Hoyt said. "But it's more than caps. It's much more complex than that." Evidence of the squeeze on insurers is the number in Florida offering malpractice policies, down from a high of 66 in 1999 to five. Florida Professionals Insurance Co. President Robert White said caps would deter lawyers from bringing some new lawsuits to court in the first place. Cases that are expensive to present wouldn't be as worthwhile to pursue knowing there are caps. Miguel Machado, St. Johns County's only neurosurgeon, said his carrier stopped offering policies in Florida. That leaves Machado seeking a self-insurance plan that would increase his costs from $60,000 to $180,000 a year. "I'm looking at alternatives," Machado said when county physicians conducted their own walkout recently. "It may be to leave town." Not everyone in Florida sides with Bush, the doctors, and the Florida House on the solution, however. The Florida Senate bypassed the House's caps for a bill that would force insurers to roll back premiums and grant some immunity to emergency room doctors for risky procedures. With a week to go in the legislative session -- one that could end with a showdown between the House and Senate -- The Florida Center for Public Policy and Leadership at the University of North Florida issued a 52-page report last week that undercut caps as a cure-all. "There is no real link between caps and premiums," said George Perkins, who co-authored the report with former state university chancellor Adam Herbert. "Caps might help, but it may not be enough," said Perkins, whose report recommended combining caps with more insurance regulation, better policing of doctors, and patients sharing risk for elective procedures. Authors disagreed that caps passed in the late 1970s in California stabilized that state's rates, agreeing with those who say Proposition 103 -- an insurance reform package passed in the 1980s -- had a bigger effect. "Thirteen years after caps were enacted in California, premiums had increased 450 percent, and then 13 years after that law (Prop 103) premiums had decreased 2 percent." Danielle J. Walters of Californians Allied for Patient Protection said caps clearly made the difference. She said rates didn't start to come down right away because caps were held up by court challenges until about the time Prop 103 passed. "We think this is an argument based on coincidence, rather than evidence," Walters said recently. She attributed California's comparatively small 150 percent increase in the past two decades to caps. What's pain worth? But James Bostwick, a top trial lawyer in San Francisco, said caps are suspect regulatory tools and cruel limits on patient compensation. Since California passed its cap, Bostwick said his firm has not been able to afford to represent injured children. Because children have not been in the workforce, actual damages for lost wages do not exist. He said lawyers are reluctant to gamble on too many cases in which the most a jury could award is $250,000, a figure no one seems to know the origin of. A law firm can spend tens, or even hundreds of thousands on a case, and yield less with its 30 percent cut of the award. At a health writers' conference, Bostwick held up picture after picture of young people whose families allege injuries and even death from malpractice. "That's a 250 case," he said of a youngster who died during a procedure. "Can't afford to do it. And that's a shame." In Northeast Florida, a review of the state's database showed two of the top three pain and suffering awards since 1999 involved babies. One baby's mother died from failure to diagnose the mother's heart condition, and another baby suffered a lifelong disability after a physician's assistant failed to detect bleeding in the brain despite a low body temperature. The top award of $7.5 million involved the case of 51-year-old Ethel Mae Vaughn whose skin cancer on her big left toe went undiagnosed until the prognosis was fatal. The defendant was Patrick P. Bunyi, a family physician at Oceanway Medical Center in Jacksonville. The University of North Florida report says caps might be unfair to the few patients with the most extensive injuries or those with low or no income. "That is an important ethical consideration," Perkins said. The report asks legislators to consider a tougher system for disciplining doctors. A total of 807 Florida doctors amid the state's several thousand have been sued between three and 32 times. A former Jacksonville gynecologist, Robert C. Brown Jr., had been allowed to keep his license despite being sued 32 times before pleading guilty in 1998 to drugs-for-sex charges. The report also said lawmakers should consider tighter regulation of insurers and limiting the rights of plaintiffs involved in elective or cosmetic surgeries. One hurdle not often mentioned, according to authors, are the constitutional questions surrounding caps. Caps have been ruled illegal in some states. The center plans to do a more in-depth study on the legality of such a proposal led by Florida State University law professor Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte. Most discussions about caps focused on big awards and frivolous lawsuits, and overestimate their effect on insurers' bottom lines, Perkins said. "It's always the sensational stuff. The $5 million to $6 million awards," Perkins said. "The perception is that they are all like that. They are not ... I think most people would be very surprised about that fact." > While the awards may be huge, it seems to me that by definition they are > fair and just. > > I can understand the costs of frivolous suits but how many are there and > if a suit is frivolous then how does a lawyer pocket millions? > > Here then is the issue... > > If a doctor is engaging in malpractice why is the healthcare insurance > company protecting him or her? > > My house has a rider excluding loss of value due to acts of God. Sure > it's protected from fire or theft but not against sliding down the hill. > > We are all human and humans make mistakes. I can understand fair and just > compensation for mistakes and the need for insurance against reasonable > mistakes. If the insurance company would pay a fair compensation for > these mistakes without all the fuss then there would be no need for the > lawyers. > > I've not had to involve any lawyers in any of my accident settlements, > (even though I've gotten pretty close to getting one on a couple of > occasions.) Auto insurance seems to have figured out that quick and > fair settlements are cheapest for all concerned. Why hasn't the Health > insurance come to this conclusion as well? -- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
Posts: n/a

Alan McIntire	[4] Posted by Alan McIntire 07-10-2003, 09:28 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CCC36.395C0756@hotmail.com>... > Gary Forbis wrote: > > > > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>... > > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare > > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the > > > democraps > > > > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won? > > But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the > insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or > dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7% > go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are > tried - about 1.3% of all claims. > So from your figures, neglecting the cases that go to trial, the average cost per lawsuit is about $100,000. Even if the payout is zero, there's still the cost of lawyers to defend the malpractice suit. Perhaps a "loser pays all court costs" law would help take care of this problem.-A.McIntire
Posts: n/a

Gary Forbis	[5] Posted by Gary Forbis 07-11-2003, 08:56 AM
Posts: n/a	Quote mcintire4@earthlink.net (Alan McIntire) wrote in message news:<48658b64.0307101628.7948601@posting.google.c om>... > Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CCC36.395C0756@hotmail.com>... > > Gary Forbis wrote: > > > > > > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>... > > > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare > > > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the > > > > democraps > > > > > > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won? > > > > But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the > > insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or > > dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7% > > go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are > > tried - about 1.3% of all claims. > > > So from your figures, neglecting the cases that go to trial, the > average cost per lawsuit is about $100,000. > Even if the payout is zero, there's still the cost of lawyers to > defend the malpractice suit. Perhaps a "loser pays all court costs" > law would help take care of this problem.-A.McIntire I'm inclined to agree but I have some reservations. There's the risk to reward ratio and deep pockets. By way of an example... Both Craps and Blackjack are near 50-50 games. The house has a slight advantage. The only real problem for the house is they sometimes loose in the short run. In order to counter this they need sufficiently deep pockets to reach the long run and weather temporary losses. For an average joe $100,000 in court costs is a big deal even if one is pretty sure one's cause is just. Suppose one's belief is a 75% chance of winning, well then, there's a 25% chance of losing and at that risking $100,000 may be too great. The solution is for the house to have deeper pockets than the player. There needs to be some resource pooling and open-eyed risk assessment going in so those with just causes can reduce their individual risks. I know this is a bit disjointed. I'll have to think abit to clean it up. I'm just stream of consciousness right now.
Posts: n/a

NoSurrender@never.net	[6] Posted by NoSurrender@never.net 07-11-2003, 12:50 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote On 10 Jul 2003 17:28:28 -0700, mcintire4@earthlink.net (Alan McIntire) wrote: >Tempest <tempest@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CCC36.395C0756@hotmail.com>... >> Gary Forbis wrote: >> > >> > "Mike" <mjpohl@samford.edu> wrote in message news:<vgp4658ebke66e@corp.supernews.com>... >> > > yep thats right hard working americans won't be able to pay for healthcare >> > > insurance while rich lawyers pocket millions! what a great vote by the >> > > democraps >> > >> > Does anyone know what percentage of malpractice suits are won? >> >> But two-thirds of patients who file a claim don't get a dime, the >> insurance group's statistics show. About 61% of cases are dismissed or >> dropped; 32% are settled, with average payouts of $300,000, and only 7% >> go to trial. Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are >> tried - about 1.3% of all claims. >> > So from your figures, neglecting the cases that go to trial, the >average cost per lawsuit is about $100,000. > Even if the payout is zero, there's still the cost of lawyers to >defend the malpractice suit. Perhaps a "loser pays all court costs" >law would help take care of this problem.-A.McIntire Always thought that was only just. Cheerio, Dennis, Proud American, Irish
Posts: n/a

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Howie Hawkins: 2004	Thersites	Politics	1	07-15-2003 04:39 AM
Re: Senate Democrats win fight over medical malpractice awards	Rico	Politics	3	07-10-2003 08:48 PM
Re: Senate Democrats win fight over medical malpractice awards	Rick	Politics	1	07-09-2003 08:58 PM
Re: Senate Democrats win fight over medical malpractice awards	NoSurrender@never.net	Politics	0	07-09-2003 08:34 PM