Will the Illinois Supreme Court approve the newly-passed malpractice caps?
“Before that can occur the Illinois Supreme Court will have to bless the new law. Two similar laws, passed in 1975 and 1995, have been struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that they were ‘arbitrary’ and ‘not rationally related to legitimate government interest.’ …
But the law and the landscape have changed since then. Arbitrary? Lawmakers tied the caps to tighter insurance regulations and doctor discipline. The state will have more control over rates than ever before. Government interest? Language in the bill specifically says caps are intended to promote the public welfare. It seems reasonable for the Supreme Court to find that having more doctors in underserved portions of the state is a legitimate government interest. …”
Related posts:
- Are psychiatrists liable for accidents caused by patients?
- A doctor decides to insure himself for malpractice
- Losing a $14M malpractice verdict
- Partial birth abortion ruling
- Lawyers win again, patients lose
- Are physician-patients held to a higher standard?
- The success of tort reform
{ 20 comments }
Having more doctors in underserved areas. Any evidence other than surveys that malpractice caps make a difference?
You mean other than the big reduction in insurance premiums and decreased number of lawsuits filed in states like Texas that have passed caps?
There’s loads of evidence that caps lower or stabilize malpractice premiums. Just today was an article about insurers in Miss lowering their rates because of caps that were passed.Same thing in Texas, Nevadaetc. Why does Indiana have far far lower malpractice rates than neighboring Illinois? Because of caps.
Not only that but look at what happened to the number of malpractice cases filed in Texas after caps were passed. They went down by over 50%. What does that tell you? It says that a huge number of frivilous lawsuits were being filed, and with caps, those frivilous cases weren’t worth it to file anymore.
So lowering rates is only one of the many benefits of capping non-economic damages.
“So lowering rates is only one of the many benefits of capping non-economic damages.”
Not according to Dr. Elliot who’s smarter than all you docs out there.
Maybe not smarter than all docs, but certainly more honest than some anonymous a**hole. For the two years before the Texas malpractice caps were implemented, doctor population in all of Texas and in underserved areas increased at a faster rate both in relative and absolute terms than in the two years since caps were implemented.
Too lazy to register, too stupid to think up a pseudonym, too cowardly to own their own words.
The number of docs is increasing in underserved areas just as fast as before and undoubtedly will accelerate as Prop 12 begins to show its wonderful effects. BTW, nice dodge of the main point: caps have dramatically decreased premiums and cut in half the number of lawsuits filed since Prop 12. Only a moron like yourself would say that caps have no effect.
Our own Dr. Elliot: too chicken and hypocritical to show his profile, too stupid to see the facts, to biased to admit when he’s wrong.
“to biased to admit when he’s wrong.”
“Biased” is the main problem. Asking Dr. Elliot comment on the righteousness of litigation is like asking Lee Iacocca to give his honest opinion about Chrysler stock.
Thinking of Kevin’s post about medical school depression and thinking of my medical school days — I envision Dr Elliot as the nerdy student in the class that always asked the boring self serving question, never quite had the answer right, was always belittled and demeaned. He can’t get past it and is still somehow searching for his ego, looking for respect and power. Kind of like the nerdy boy in “The Incredibles” cartoon. The kind of guy you can’t resist picking on partly because you just want to see what his reaction will be –like a diatribe about pseudonyms or homonyms
Dr. Elliot would appear to be wrong yet again. The number of practicing docs is increasing faster after Prop. 12 than before it was passed:
http://www.tapa.info/HTML/GrowthSpeclCharts.html
http://www.tapa.info/HTML/Access/I_A_Phys_Gro_County.html
Just as important is that many high risk specialties are increasing the scope of their practice. Neurosurgeons, for example, are beginning to take ER call again.
“The kind of guy you can’t resist picking on partly because you just want to see what his reaction will be –like a diatribe about pseudonyms or homonyms”
LOL, Dr. Elliot’s such a hypocrite. He chides folks for not registering and using a fake name like he does but he won’t let anyone look at his blogger profile.
Thank you for the link. I was confused how it might be that a Texas group so dedicated to the truth like Texas Alliance for Patent Access and myself (a mere fake doctor) could have come to such different conclusions. I went to the source data.
http://www.tsbme.state.tx.us/demo/docs/docdemo.htm
In May 2001 there were 34,950 licensed physicians in Texas. In May, 2003 there were 38,035 licensed physicians in Texas. The difference is 3085 growth in 2 years prior to enactment of the caps. In May, 2005 there were 41,049 which is a growth of only 3014 in the two years after caps. Why does the excellent, honest, unbiased research of TAPA show a different result? They include out-of-state physicians. Well, honest researchers always have to deal with limitations of their data so maybe the information by specialty wasn’t available even though the total number was (but how did I (the mere fake doctor feel confident in making my statement unless I was simply lying?). Turns out that the data is available. When I did my research I went to the county level data which has the advantage of being able to pinpoint underserved areas. (Choose physicians by county then specialty for that info). I guess TAPA didn’t know that the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (and the AMA) gathered the information in such detail. Unfortunately it skewed their results in a way that I think distorts the actual truth of the matter.
The first sentence of their mission statement is “The Texas Alliance for Patient Access is a coalition of doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health care providers and medical liability insurers.” These brave seekers of the truth and justice need to know that they should refine their careful research. Will one of the brave anonymous posters here, please let them know their error. I don’t fit into any of the relevant categories so I imagine the pointing out of the error will be much better received by TAPA when it comes from a fellow traveler such as a real physcian.
“In May 2001 there were 34,950 licensed physicians in Texas…”
Stop right there. “Licensed” is not the same as “practicing”. I, for example, quit practice in 2001 because of the liability crisis but I have an active licence there. So the numbers you are so in love with don’t say anything about the number of physicians actually in practice, nor do they include the number of already practicing docs who having resumed vital ER work, deliver babies, etc. because of Prop 12.
Oh, big surprise, the unbiased Dr. Elliot doesn’t believe real doctors or anyone associated with real doctors. Well how about the opinion of an attorney? It should give you him a boner just thinking about it:
“Medical malpractice liability limits became effective in Texas on September 1, 2003 and were part of a comprehensive tort law overhaul. Since that time, there have been 15 new entrants to the medical malpractice insurance market, general rate stabilization, a 5% increase in the number of physicians overall, and increases in key physician specialties, according to the Texas Department of Insurance.”
“Since the passage of Texas HB 4, including the medical malpractice liability limits, physician ranks have increased. From May 2003 to September 2004, the total number of physicians in Texas increased by 5%, including a 62% increase in obstetricians. This compares to a 1% increase from May 2002 to May 2003, including a 13% decrease in obstetricians.”
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0918.htm
You anonymous guys need to wise up. Dr. Elliot’s the only one with balls enough to post under a fake ID. The rest of you are a bunch of chickens.
Since Ms Kaminski makes the same mistake as TAPA and uses the specialty numbers that include out-of-state practices, I’m not going to offer a separate critique. Additionally, the comparison of May to May numbers with May to Sep numbers is problematic because of the effect of graduation and residency.
“I envision Dr Elliot as the nerdy student in the class that always asked the boring self serving question, never quite had the answer right, was always belittled and demeaned.”
I kind of imagine Dr. Elliot like the older guy in my class who was a paranoid, antisocial, bizarre social misfit who just couldn’t hack it in med school. He eventually went to law school and now vents his rage by chasing ambulances for a living.
“Since Ms Kaminski makes the same mistake as TAPA and uses the specialty numbers that include out-of-state practices, I’m not going to offer a separate critique.”
Dr Elliot, I’m disappointed in you. I didn’t think you’d give up the ambulance chaser’s ship so easily – LOL!
This is juvenile behavior and it is quite sad that these are our future doctors. Did anyone teach you how to debate with respect?
“This is juvenile behavior and it is quite sad that these are our future doctors. Did anyone teach you how to debate with respect?”
FYI, Dr. Elliot is not a future doctor nor does he ever debate anyone with respect. Perhaps that’s why he gets so little respect in return.
“This is juvenile behavior and it is quite sad that these are our future doctors. Did anyone teach you how to debate with respect?”
Dr. Elliot is a lawyer, not a doctor. The only respect he ever needs to show is to tip an extra 5 bucks to the five and dime whore he visits on the weekends. In his career as a prostitute in the courtroom, no respect is necessary. Just the ability to earn, by any means necessary.
Comments on this entry are closed.