As some of you may have heard, there is a serious crisis in our state with sky-rocketing medical malpractice insurance costs. Many physicians are charged $100,000 and up per year just to be covered against malpractice.

The unfortunate result is that many PA physicians are leaving or considering leaving our state to practice elsewhere. The fall out from such an exodus could leave PA with a severe shortage of physicians and surgeons in vital specialty areas, which would adversely affect the quality of healthcare in our region and potentially place peoples lives in jeopardy.

You can help. Follow the links below and find out how:

Community Action Center- PA Med. Liability Crisis: (look on right side of page and click on Take Action Now)

http://support.amh.org/site/PageServer

The Project on Medical Liability in PA

http://medliabilitypa.org/

Pennsylvania Medical Society- Med. Liability Reform:
http://pamedsoc.activematter.com/Con...PA________.htm

Inquirer Article "Lawmakers must Address Medical Malpractice"

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/7492786.htm

Help protect the quality of healthcare in our state and take action now.

Peace,

J

Has anything been done by our legislature at all? I can't recall our Govenor doing anything...but then again, with his broadcasts of Eagle's postgame shows, who has the time.

:wink:

I hear defense lawyers talking about this: "defense" counsel who say that they want this are just trying to look good for their clients. If limits were put on recovery, it would be bad for defense attys. Why would an insurance company pay $250K in defense costs to defense attys if they only stood to lose $250K. They'd just settle and avoid the litigation costs. This would take away a lot of work from defense attys.

The irony of being a defense attorney is that wins for your client aren't necessary wins for you. On the other hand, too many losses for your client equates in them getting a different firm to represent them.

Ethically, we do what's best for the client. But I'm saying that's perhaps a reason why the defense bar isn't pushing much more on this issue.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

An interesting take on the issue.

I wonder if anything will be done this year?

There was a temporary relief measure passed again by our governor and state legislature regarding the MCARE fund (which PA physicians have to pay tens of thousands of $$$ each year to be insured against malpractice liability). Here is a summary from a recent Phila Inquirer article:

RELIEF MAY BE IN SIGHT ON MED-MAL CRISIS


So, to answer your question, Steve, yes Gov Rendell has done a lot to help the situation. A long-term solution and lasting malpractice liability reform is needed, but our legislators seem to be working toward that. Rendell has also advocated for much-needed, and long-overdue funding increases for schools with his most recent budget proposals.

Regarding the defense laywers' situation- I have little sympathy for them- their predatory litagatory practices have, in large part created this crisis or at the very least significantly magnified it. Many of these jury awards in malpractice cases are excessive and gratuitous.

There must be accountability, yes, but there also needs to be a cap on liability, and a higher burden of proof in order for malpractice cases to be tried. Physicians are accountable to the state medical board, and to their clinical supervisors already.

Avaricious trial lawyers and their clients also need to be accountable. If genuine malpractice has been committed, the physician should be disciplined and if deemed appropriate, lose his or her medical license. However, making outrageously inflated monetary awards beyond actual medical costs serves little purpose other than to raise insurance costs which are eventually passed to financially strapped hospitals and, in turn, right back to the consumers, many of whom have grossly inadequate health coverage to begin with.

Peace,

J

I wasn't looking for sympathy for defense attorneys. I was explaining their perspective, and how this stuff actually works. What predatory tactics are you speaking of? When a doctor or hospital is sued, they need defense. Providing that defense is what they do--how is that predatory?

Furthermore--if a higher burden of proof is required, this will cost both sides more legal costs to support the investigation. If there's a cap, there's going to be less incentive to spend the money to really look at the cases because as a defense attorney, you can't bill $500K worth of work on a case worth $250K, and as a plaintiff's attorney when you get 1/3 you can't justify spending anymore than 1/3 of $250K or you're working for free. You can't ask that there be more work put into these cases for less money. Lawyers, like anyone else, do not work for free.

And I agree with you that this stuff raises health care costs overall. But for the woman I know that had her breast removed because she went to a doctor that mixed up her xray and she never had cancer in the first place, and went for a second opinion to a doctor who was friends with the first and took his word, how do you compensate that woman? Those are tough issues. Those doctors should not be practicing, but they should be accountable. It's a balancing act, in my mind.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

Brooke,

You make some very valid points- people who have been wronged medically need to have access to malpractice litigation. Certainly attourneys have an important role on both sides.

Presently though, there are very few boundaries to protect against less than ethical lawyers and clients who agressively pursue huge monetary awards that far surpass the medical expenses, lost wages, loss of ability and other damages.

Legitimate, serious cases of malpractice need to be heard and appropriate awards made. There need to be more limits though on what cases come to trial, and also a higher degree of selectivity with jurors, because lets face it, most jurors are sympathetic to the person bringing the malpractice suit, and don't see anything wrong with dipping into the supposedly deep pockets of the hospitals and physicians.

What they don't see or realize is how these excessive awards and frivolous cases hurt healthcare and eventually get passed back to the consumers and underinsured.

Peace,

J

By the way,

My wife was a victim of malpractice and almost died. We chose not to sue because she recovered. Had things been different, I don't know what we would have done, but I can almost assuredly say that I would not seek some outrageous award or settlement. Medical expenses, lost income, loss of ability, etc, should all be compensated, and the physician in question should have their medical license revoked, but anything beyond that is frivolous and unnecessary.

J

I'm sure we all know lawyers don't work for free...or anywhere close to it.
I don't think Rendell has done anything for doctors really. Most doctors aren;t looking for MCARE to pick up more of the tab but for a real solution. MCARE is good for Rendell b/c it allows his laywer buddies to continue cashing in on insurance companies b/c doctors can bill taxpayers for their insurance expenses so the loser here, as usual, is the working Pennsylvanian. The winner? the lawyers. doctors come out even b/c MCARE doesn't cover that much of their insurance and rates continue their spiral. it falls victim to the American mentality that throwing money at something will solve the problem. This issue only further exacerbates insurance problems and we wind up with less doctors to see people and rates ahve to be raised across the board, to insured and uninsured alike as doctors struggle to meet costs.

but the problem is, large rewards aren;t holding doctors accountable...they are driving them from the state and leaving the rest of us with less care. The less doctors and nurses there are, the more likely malpractice will occur as staffs are overworked. Furthermore, insurance is picking up the tab so the doctor isn't being held directly accountable, the insurance company is and everyone else is really paying for these settlements. insruance co'sbill other doctors who raise their rates for all thus sending it back to insurance companies who have to pay the doctors and are forced to raise premiums on indidivuals. It pushes up insurance rates for all and pretty much cuts off access for the uninsured as dr. 's rates skyrocket. if insurance companies could accurately predict who would get a suit, they could charge them more. however, if frivolous lawsuits get big rewards, everyone has to pay b/c you can;t predict when those will occur and to whome. does that make sense?

You're talking about plaintiffs-side attorneys. I still want to know what the defense attorney predatory techniques are. The point I was trying to make is that while it seems like defense attorneys would want these cases capped out to protect their clients (insurance companies), there actually is more than meets the eye. Because the more limits put on plaintiff's attorneys to sue, the less and less business defense attorneys will have.

Law isn't the only field this is the truth in. Think about it: if all credit card holder paid their balances, collectors would be out of work. If all appliances ran perfectly forever, appliance repairmen would be out of work.

Trust me, defense attorneys are doing their best to pick the best juries. When all of you get out of jury duty for one reason or another, it leaves the elderly and people on public assistance that sit on juries. It's not uncommon, I can tell you, to look out into a jury and see half of the jurors daydreaming or sleeping! The same people that we think are idiots that voted for Katz sit on juries. That's what we have to work with. It's picking the less of the evils in that situation.

Most cases are settled out of court. The most egregious cases get news coverage because they're odd. And the defense attorneys have every right to preach to juries about the effect of digging into deep pockets.

El, I agree with you that nothing financially can compensate for some of these mistakes. I dated a doctor for 2 and 1/2 years that sometimes spent 3 days in the hospital at a time with 4 hours a sleep during that whole period. There's more regulations in place now that ever before to cut back hours. He also saw a lot of things done by doctors who weren't overworked but just didn't care and were cocky. I can see both sides of this and I know there needs to be reform...but I'm not sure how best to do that at this point.

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach