Tort Reform Now!

[barfbag]

Limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $1,250,000 to be paid as $250,000 and $50,000 annually for 20 years.

Punitive damages limited to $350,000.

No attorney may receive more than $100,000 of malpractice awards.

In order to find a person liable for exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the defendant knew their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

In order to receive exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the plaintiff didn't know the impairment of the driver.

Should patients be allowed to sue their HMO's?

[bedstuy]

It's a myth that medical malpractice is one of the main reasons our healthcare costs outpace other industrialized countries.  That said our legal system is an inefficient means to resolve these conflicts. 

If we wanted to cut costs, here's an option. Allow individuals to waive out of the tort law system for their in-network care or other provider system, and submit any med mal claim to binding arbitration.   

Limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $1,250,000 to be paid as $250,000 and $50,000 annually for 20 years.

Punitive damages limited to $350,000.

No attorney may receive more than $100,000 of malpractice awards.

In order to find a person liable for exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the defendant knew their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

In order to receive exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the plaintiff didn't know the impairment of the driver.

Should patients be allowed to sue their HMO's?

Horrible idea because it would cause lawyers to settle cases for less than is optimal for the plaintiff.

[barfbag]

It's a myth that medical malpractice is one of the main reasons our healthcare costs outpace other industrialized countries.  That said our legal system is an inefficient means to resolve these conflicts. 

If we wanted to cut costs, here's an option. Allow individuals to waive out of the tort law system for their in-network care or other provider system, and submit any med mal claim to binding arbitration.   

Limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $1,250,000 to be paid as $250,000 and $50,000 annually for 20 years.

Punitive damages limited to $350,000.

No attorney may receive more than $100,000 of malpractice awards.

In order to find a person liable for exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the defendant knew their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

In order to receive exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the plaintiff didn't know the impairment of the driver.

Should patients be allowed to sue their HMO's?

Horrible idea because it would cause lawyers to settle cases for less than is optimal for the plaintiff.

Which is precisely the point. We don't want our hospitals sued and our doctors being out of work. They're needed to keep people like you and me alive.

[bedstuy]

It's a myth that medical malpractice is one of the main reasons our healthcare costs outpace other industrialized countries.  That said our legal system is an inefficient means to resolve these conflicts. 

If we wanted to cut costs, here's an option. Allow individuals to waive out of the tort law system for their in-network care or other provider system, and submit any med mal claim to binding arbitration.   

Limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $1,250,000 to be paid as $250,000 and $50,000 annually for 20 years.

Punitive damages limited to $350,000.

No attorney may receive more than $100,000 of malpractice awards.

In order to find a person liable for exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the defendant knew their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

In order to receive exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the plaintiff didn't know the impairment of the driver.

Should patients be allowed to sue their HMO's?

Horrible idea because it would cause lawyers to settle cases for less than is optimal for the plaintiff.

Which is precisely the point. We don't want our hospitals sued and our doctors being out of work. They're needed to keep people like you and me alive.

What if someone has a $1.25 mil med mal claim?  The lawyer has a good reason to settle that case for $300k because the lawyer's fee will not increase dollar for dollar after that point.   

[© tweed]

where do you get these one-liners from?  President Forever?

[barfbag]

It's a myth that medical malpractice is one of the main reasons our healthcare costs outpace other industrialized countries.  That said our legal system is an inefficient means to resolve these conflicts. 

If we wanted to cut costs, here's an option. Allow individuals to waive out of the tort law system for their in-network care or other provider system, and submit any med mal claim to binding arbitration.   

Limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $1,250,000 to be paid as $250,000 and $50,000 annually for 20 years.

Punitive damages limited to $350,000.

No attorney may receive more than $100,000 of malpractice awards.

In order to find a person liable for exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the defendant knew their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

In order to receive exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the plaintiff didn't know the impairment of the driver.

Should patients be allowed to sue their HMO's?

Horrible idea because it would cause lawyers to settle cases for less than is optimal for the plaintiff.

Which is precisely the point. We don't want our hospitals sued and our doctors being out of work. They're needed to keep people like you and me alive.

What if someone has a $1.25 mil med mal claim?  The lawyer has a good reason to settle that case for $300k because the lawyer's fee will not increase dollar for dollar after that point.   

So what you're saying is that my plan of limiting how much attorneys can make from a case would help to limit how much people sue their doctor for.

[bedstuy]

It's a myth that medical malpractice is one of the main reasons our healthcare costs outpace other industrialized countries.  That said our legal system is an inefficient means to resolve these conflicts. 

If we wanted to cut costs, here's an option. Allow individuals to waive out of the tort law system for their in-network care or other provider system, and submit any med mal claim to binding arbitration.   

Limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $1,250,000 to be paid as $250,000 and $50,000 annually for 20 years.

Punitive damages limited to $350,000.

No attorney may receive more than $100,000 of malpractice awards.

In order to find a person liable for exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the defendant knew their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

In order to receive exemplary damages caused by an intoxicated driver, it must be proven that the plaintiff didn't know the impairment of the driver.

Should patients be allowed to sue their HMO's?

Horrible idea because it would cause lawyers to settle cases for less than is optimal for the plaintiff.

Which is precisely the point. We don't want our hospitals sued and our doctors being out of work. They're needed to keep people like you and me alive.

What if someone has a $1.25 mil med mal claim?  The lawyer has a good reason to settle that case for $300k because the lawyer's fee will not increase dollar for dollar after that point.   

So what you're saying is that my plan of limiting how much attorneys can make from a case would help to limit how much people sue their doctor for.

Yes, but it would do so by creating perverse incentives for lawyers to act unethically. 

The problem with your system is that it screws over people with significant injuries from negligent treatment and poor people.  It's easy to rail against greedy lawyers.  But, a parent with a permanently disabled child very often has more than $1.25 million in damages.  Tort law is an inefficient way to solve that problem, I agree.  But, you have to reckon with those tragic cases.  A hard cap is just a blunt, dumb way to do accomplish the goal.

[politicus]

Lawyers outside the US generally get paid for the hours they use on a case, not for a cut of the clients award. You then rely on the lawyers professional ethics for him/her to do the best possible job. It seems to work fine in most cases. I know US lawyers have a bad reputation, but still this fear of lawyers ignoring their clients interests seems a little exaggerated.
Personally I find the whole idea that a lawyer should get a cut of his clients compensation unethical. Its money rewarded to the victim, not for his or her lawyer.

[bedstuy]

Lawyers outside the US generally get paid for the hours they use on a case, not for a cut of the clients award. You then rely on the lawyers professional ethics for him/her to do the best possible job. It seems to work fine in most cases. I know US lawyers have a bad reputation, but still this fear of lawyers ignoring their clients interests seems a little exaggerated.
Personally I find the whole idea that a lawyer should get a cut of his clients compensation unethical. Its money rewarded to the victim, not for his or her lawyer.

Lawyers in industrialized nations outside the US operate under a different context entirely.  In the US, we don't have the same social safety net, health insurance and regulation.  So, tort law provides an alternative means of social insurance and regulation for people who often lack insurance and an adequate personal safety net. 

And the obvious point about contingency fees is that a injured poor or middle class person cannot afford to compensate a lawyer for an expensive case that involves expert witnesses and a extensive time investment.

[barfbag]

Lawyers outside the US generally get paid for the hours they use on a case, not for a cut of the clients award. You then rely on the lawyers professional ethics for him/her to do the best possible job. It seems to work fine in most cases. I know US lawyers have a bad reputation, but still this fear of lawyers ignoring their clients interests seems a little exaggerated.
Personally I find the whole idea that a lawyer should get a cut of his clients compensation unethical. Its money rewarded to the victim, not for his or her lawyer.

Lawyers in industrialized nations outside the US operate under a different context entirely.  In the US, we don't have the same social safety net, health insurance and regulation.  So, tort law provides an alternative means of social insurance and regulation for people who often lack insurance and an adequate personal safety net. 

And the obvious point about contingency fees is that a injured poor or middle class person cannot afford to compensate a lawyer for an expensive case that involves expert witnesses and a extensive time investment.

Well something needs to be done. There was a case at a Panera Bread I used to work at where a manager and an employee were awarded roughly $75,000 combined and their attorney kept roughly $65,000. Now tell me the attorney isn't acting unethically here. The more money an attorney can make the more unethical they can be is my argument. What about cases where nothing bad at all happens to someone, but they sue their doctor for $100,000,000 even though they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that their prescription made them "sick." Not everyone who sues their HMO is ethical. Many times in America people try to make money off of the court system. I agree there's a value to be compensated for when someone is injured or becomes ill as a result of medical malpractice, but let's at least agree that being set for life from a lawsuit is enough for anyone.

[bedstuy]

Lawyers outside the US generally get paid for the hours they use on a case, not for a cut of the clients award. You then rely on the lawyers professional ethics for him/her to do the best possible job. It seems to work fine in most cases. I know US lawyers have a bad reputation, but still this fear of lawyers ignoring their clients interests seems a little exaggerated.
Personally I find the whole idea that a lawyer should get a cut of his clients compensation unethical. Its money rewarded to the victim, not for his or her lawyer.

Lawyers in industrialized nations outside the US operate under a different context entirely.  In the US, we don't have the same social safety net, health insurance and regulation.  So, tort law provides an alternative means of social insurance and regulation for people who often lack insurance and an adequate personal safety net. 

And the obvious point about contingency fees is that a injured poor or middle class person cannot afford to compensate a lawyer for an expensive case that involves expert witnesses and a extensive time investment.

Well something needs to be done. There was a case at a Panera Bread I used to work at where a manager and an employee were awarded roughly $75,000 combined and their attorney kept roughly $65,000. Now tell me the attorney isn't acting unethically here. The more money an attorney can make the more unethical they can be is my argument. What about cases where nothing bad at all happens to someone, but they sue their doctor for $100,000,000 even though they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that their prescription made them "sick." Not everyone who sues their HMO is ethical. Many times in America people try to make money off of the court system. I agree there's a value to be compensated for when someone is injured or becomes ill as a result of medical malpractice, but let's at least agree that being set for life from a lawsuit is enough for anyone.

First, you don't have to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in these cases. 

Second, I agree with your general premise that these cases are a drain on society and an inefficient means of compensation and regulation.  I just disagree about the specific proposals you made, except perhaps on punitive damages which I'm inclined to eliminate entirely.  I would prefer some type of opt-in binding arbitration. 

Third, if a lawyer is bringing frivolous cases, they should be punished and if they become repeat offenders, they should lose their ability to practice law.

[barfbag]

Lawyers outside the US generally get paid for the hours they use on a case, not for a cut of the clients award. You then rely on the lawyers professional ethics for him/her to do the best possible job. It seems to work fine in most cases. I know US lawyers have a bad reputation, but still this fear of lawyers ignoring their clients interests seems a little exaggerated.
Personally I find the whole idea that a lawyer should get a cut of his clients compensation unethical. Its money rewarded to the victim, not for his or her lawyer.

Lawyers in industrialized nations outside the US operate under a different context entirely.  In the US, we don't have the same social safety net, health insurance and regulation.  So, tort law provides an alternative means of social insurance and regulation for people who often lack insurance and an adequate personal safety net. 

And the obvious point about contingency fees is that a injured poor or middle class person cannot afford to compensate a lawyer for an expensive case that involves expert witnesses and a extensive time investment.

Well something needs to be done. There was a case at a Panera Bread I used to work at where a manager and an employee were awarded roughly $75,000 combined and their attorney kept roughly $65,000. Now tell me the attorney isn't acting unethically here. The more money an attorney can make the more unethical they can be is my argument. What about cases where nothing bad at all happens to someone, but they sue their doctor for $100,000,000 even though they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that their prescription made them "sick." Not everyone who sues their HMO is ethical. Many times in America people try to make money off of the court system. I agree there's a value to be compensated for when someone is injured or becomes ill as a result of medical malpractice, but let's at least agree that being set for life from a lawsuit is enough for anyone.

First, you don't have to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in these cases. 

Second, I agree with your general premise that these cases are a drain on society and an inefficient means of compensation and regulation.  I just disagree about the specific proposals you made, except perhaps on punitive damages which I'm inclined to eliminate entirely.  I would prefer some type of opt-in binding arbitration. 

Third, if a lawyer is bringing frivolous cases, they should be punished and if they become repeat offenders, they should lose their ability to practice law.

I can agree with your idea of what to do with attorneys, but not sure about eliminating punitive damages.

[King]

where do you get these one-liners from?  President Forever?

Tort Reform Speech Backfires!

[barfbag]

What do you mean? ^

[anvi]

It's not actual malpractice payouts that are driving up healthcare costs; the payouts actually account for very little in the industry overall.  It's rather the medical over-testing that is routinely done in the name of avoiding those lawsuits.  Over-testing accounts for a huge amount of expenditure in the health care industry every year, about $200 billion annually.  But over-testing is done for lots of reasons, lots of times as a way for doctors to increase their revenues.  However, a still significant percentage, about $60 billion of that $200 billion price tag in annual overteting is done in the name of "defensive medicine."

http://www.newsinferno.com/?p=43980


Another effect of the actual payouts, however, is to cause the price of medical malpractice insurance in the U.S. to spike for physicians--malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S. cost physicians about ten times what they do in other industrialized countries, and some of that cost surely is passed on to patients.  (Not all of that cost differential is due to malpractice caps of course--these other countries have much lower costs both for patients and physicians across the board.  But still, the difference is huge.)

I would support a very carefully crafted sort of tort reform, which would limit the amount of testing doctors would have to do in order to avoid lawsuits, and perhaps cap some claim amounts.  But I think careful, detailed study would be required in order to design effective policy in this area.

[barfbag]

It's not actual malpractice payouts that are driving up healthcare costs; the payouts actually account for very little in the industry overall.  It's rather the medical over-testing that is routinely done in the name of avoiding those lawsuits.  Over-testing accounts for a huge amount of expenditure in the health care industry every year, about $200 billion annually.  But over-testing is done for lots of reasons, lots of times as a way for doctors to increase their revenues.  However, a still significant percentage, about $60 billion of that $200 billion price tag in annual overteting is done in the name of "defensive medicine."

http://www.newsinferno.com/?p=43980


Another effect of the actual payouts, however, is to cause the price of medical malpractice insurance in the U.S. to spike for physicians--malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S. cost physicians about ten times what they do in other industrialized countries, and some of that cost surely is passed on to patients.  (Not all of that cost differential is due to malpractice caps of course--these other countries have much lower costs both for patients and physicians across the board.  But still, the difference is huge.)

I would support a very carefully crafted sort of tort reform, which would limit the amount of testing doctors would have to do in order to avoid lawsuits, and perhaps cap some claim amounts.  But I think careful, detailed study would be required in order to design effective policy in this area.

Doctors wouldn't have to over test if they weren't frivolously sued as much. You're very correct and I'd like to see a committee of a half dozen members from each party in the senate and a larger committee from the house to come up with a bill which would limit frivolous lawsuits in order to limit over testing as you've mentioned. I loved George W. Bush for wanting to get it taken care of.