Saturday, April 30, 2005
A call to New Hampshire physicians
The New Hampshire Medical Society is making a plea to physicians to support the bill for pre-trial panels in medical malpractice cases (SB 214). I will do my part by spreading the word through this blog. This has been exhaustively discussed previously.From a letter I received today: "Many legislators have only received one call or one letter from physicians in support of SB 214. There is still time to make these important contacts."
The NH Medical Society supports SB 214 (taken from a NH Medical Society bulletin):
* Without meaningful tort reform like SB 214, medical specialists will continue to disappear from NH or stop performing high-risk procedures. NH patients should not have to drive 50 miles or go to Boston for quality specialty care.The NH Medical society opposes the trial attorneys' version, HB 702 (again, taken from a NH Medical Society bulletin):
* This bill will work for the benefit of NH citizens because it's been working in Maine for the past 20 years.
* Maine's medical liability insurance rates are 30-40% less than in NH.
* SB 214 will stabilize rates in NH which will make it easier to recruit and retain needed medical specialists.
* SB 214 requires all med mal cases go before a 3-person panel: a judge, an attorney, and a health care practitioner of all the same or similar specialty as the defendant.
* SB 214 does not restrict anyone's right to a jury trial.
* Pre-trial panels help plaintiffs with smaller cases because panel expenses are less (many lawyers won't take a case to trial unless there are significant damages involved).
* Only unanimous decisions by the panel are admissible in any future trial.
* Pre-trial screening panels encourage quicker settlements. 80% of med mal cases in Maine are resolved before a panel meets.
* The 20-year, positive experience in Maine indicates that pre-trial screening panels benefit the patient because average awards are not reduced: plaintiffs receive more money, sooner.
* System costs are lower for both plaintiffs and defendants because very few cases end up in an actual trial.
* SB 214 includes an important oversight committee that will study med mal premium rates, claims data and the effect of the panel system.
* HB 702 is worse than the voluntary and inadmissible pre-trial screening law (RSA 519-A) that is currently on the books in NH.
* HB 702 mandates pre-trial screening by a single judge - no panel and no medical expertise.
* Under HB 702, only the plaintiff presents evidence (one-sided approach).
* If a case is not dropped or settled, HB 702 requires mediation within 45 days. The legal community has indicated that forced mediation in such a short time frame is not realistic for med mal cases.
* The judges decision is not admissible in a future trial. NH already has an inadmissible, ineffective panel law. Admissibility of a screening decision is the "incentive" that encourages settlements.
* HB 702 prohibits confidential settlements which will result in more cases going to trial and will consequently cost more money in legal fees.
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (5)
| 
Comments:
Questions:
"SB 214 will stabilize rates in NH which will make it easier to recruit and retain needed medical specialists"
- Says who? What insurer has promised to "stabilize" rates (whatever that means?)
"80% of med mal cases in Maine are resolved before a panel meets"
- That means little if we don't know how soon after the injury that is or how fast cases resolve elsewhere.
"System costs are lower. . . "
- Have any numbers to support that? Don't the parties still have to prepare for the panel? Will lawyers not work as hard?
It may be a good idea, so why try and buttress it with partial or misleading statistics?
"SB 214 will stabilize rates in NH which will make it easier to recruit and retain needed medical specialists"
- Says who? What insurer has promised to "stabilize" rates (whatever that means?)
"80% of med mal cases in Maine are resolved before a panel meets"
- That means little if we don't know how soon after the injury that is or how fast cases resolve elsewhere.
"System costs are lower. . . "
- Have any numbers to support that? Don't the parties still have to prepare for the panel? Will lawyers not work as hard?
It may be a good idea, so why try and buttress it with partial or misleading statistics?
If it's worked in neighboring Maine, it's certainly worth a try in NH. And while you're skeptical about rates "stabilizing", tort reform in other states (TX, NV) has actually caused rates to not just stabilize but to go down.
Eye Doc,
Sorry, but if you don't know the rates of payouts, rate of claims, etc. then how can you say this was the reason for them to go lower.
One provider in Texas lowered rates 15% after raising them 150%. Others asked for increases, saying tort reform would affect no more than 1% of their losses. Might want to check your facts. Got a link for Nevada?
Sorry, but if you don't know the rates of payouts, rate of claims, etc. then how can you say this was the reason for them to go lower.
One provider in Texas lowered rates 15% after raising them 150%. Others asked for increases, saying tort reform would affect no more than 1% of their losses. Might want to check your facts. Got a link for Nevada?
It's interesting to see two diametrical opposites jockeying for legisltion that benefits themselves. Providers want to protect themselves and the legal community sees it as an abuse by insurance and health industry for patients with legitimate claims. While I can appreciate both sides, as a practitioner, I also watch TV and see the Jim Sokolov ads alost advocating claims. While I think negligence is inexcusible and should be dealt with appropriately, until there is a little restraint in the system and a little less "cash cow" mentality in our country provoking frivolous suits, then I think it's at least worth a try.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 12:03 PM
: 12:03 PM
