Another editorial sides with the AMA on the Studdert malpractice study

The Herald in Washington:

The Harvard researchers may not think the system is riddled with frivolous lawsuits, but we agree with the AMA that 40 percent is too many, and they do burden the system, even when there is no payout.

Perhaps a penalty for filing a frivolous suit might help some patients have more respect for the law. Getting those numbers down would put the focus where it should be: punishing and/or weeding out the small percentage of doctors who harm patients.

Update –
Here’s another one. The Patriot-News in PA:

In short, the medical malpractice system as we know it is one great big roulette wheel that does a far less than acceptable job of compensating those truly harmed by improper treatment. It survives, we suspect, because trial lawyers — who appear to benefit from the system more than anyone else — have convinced many Americans that any other system would fail to adequately compensate those who suffer serious injury as a result of medical error.

In fact, there’s every reason to believe that an independent no-fault system run through special medical courts would do a far better job of awarding compensation to the truly deserving far faster, with far less uncertainty and personal trauma, and at far less cost.

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Anonymous

    “trial lawyers — who appear to benefit from the system more than anyone else — have convinced many Americans that any other system would fail to adequately compensate those who suffer serious injury as a result of medical error.”

    I doubt this is accurate. The majority of health care consumers probably do believe that legal action may be the only way to arrive at the “truth” — and the medical community reinforces that belief by making dialogue following a problem virtually impossible. Communication and compensation are two separate needs and should be studied separately.

  • Anonymous

    When the studies go in your favor, your lobbyists cite the studies. When the studies don’t go in your favor, your lobbyists attack the study.

    Either way, regardless of the quality of the study (and this study is fairly unassailable), people still conclude what they want to conclude facts be damned, as evidenced by this statement:

    “In fact, there’s every reason to believe that an independent no-fault system run through special medical courts would do a far better job of awarding compensation to the truly deserving far faster, with far less uncertainty and personal trauma, and at far less cost.”