Sunday, May 29, 20056
Malpractice caps: Both sides can show data that they're right
Illinois is the latest state to enter the cap fray: "Now that Gov. Rod Blagojevich and state lawmakers have agreed to try caps to contain the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance and keep doctors in Illinois, even the most optimistic say there is not much to do but hope for the best."
Illinois is the latest state to enter the cap fray: "Now that Gov. Rod Blagojevich and state lawmakers have agreed to try caps to contain the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance and keep doctors in Illinois, even the most optimistic say there is not much to do but hope for the best."
Comments
-
Bob Vineyard, CLU
Caps on general damages have some effect, but not as much as some would have you believe.
-
Anonymous
Let's see: drs who lose have their legal fees paid by the med mal carrier; patients who lose pay the legal fees out of their pockets. This encourages drs and their carriers to fight harder and run the bills up to force a settlement. 'Loser pays' would have more of an effect if the drs were required to pay their OWN legal fees personally, just as you suggest the plaintiffs do...and still the playing field isn't level, since most drs probably have more personal resources than most plaintiffs.
-
Bob Vineyard, CLU
There are no "one size fits all" solutions, particularly in the arena of litigation. However the scenario we now have, and this is not just limited to med mal, is the following.
-
Anonymous
Bob, which carriers out there settle weak claims?
-
Anonymous
Regardless of all the "this statistic says this" and "that statistic says that" is one clear truth.
-
Bob Vineyard, CLU
Anonymous 10:21 -
Post a CommentChanging our legal system to a "loser pays" would stem the tide of frivolous suits, reduce the volume of awards, and have the effect of modulating or even lowering premiums.
Of course, that will happen right after pigs learn to fly . . .
7:12 PM
2:35 AM
Plaintiff has a beef and takes it up with Ima Litigator, Esq.
Ima agrees to file the suit in exchange for a 25 - 40% cut when the suit is settled.
Ima knows the case is weak but files it anyway because he knows the doc would rather pay up than have his name come up on the 6 PM news.
Some time later the suit is settled. The doc is several out of pocket several grand (med mal policies do have deductibles) for legal fees and the settlement.
Ima get's his vigorish.
The plaintiff, who has virtually nothing invested in their suit collects the balance.
The only one with any skin in the deal, the way it shakes out now is the doc. Loser pays will cut down on the number of frivolous suits, leaving only those with merit to be filed.
6:27 AM
9:21 AM
This cap "experiment" which will CLEARLY hurt those who don't earn wages the worst (children, stay-at-home moms, and the elderly), has no guaranteed benefit. Not one carrier will promise to lower their rates or even keep them the same for any length of time. None. Zero. They get all the benefit of caps, and no downside. In effect, the risk is being removed from a business that is predicated on taking risk.
The doctor only hopes he gets a better deal, the injured patient definitely gets screwed, the rest of us consumers lucky enough not to be victims don't see a reduction in our bill, but the insurer now has its losses capped.
People truly believe that bad things could never happen to them. And physicians, against all logic and reason, somehow believe that insurers will give money back! Yet they have to sue insurance companies just to get adequately reimbursed for the work they perform.
It's truly stunning that an industry could convince people to give them this kind of protection.
10:20 AM
Not all claims are filed with the carrier. Some that can be settled for less than the deductible are done so at the discretion of the doc and his/her attorney.
Sometimes it can cost as much (or more) to fight a case, even one without merit, as it can to settle. It is an economic matter, which is what most suits are about.
10:50 AM