Asking patients to voluntarily choose mediation instead, with the hope of quicker settlements. Predictably, lawyers are not happy.
Related posts:
- Will reforming the malpractice system be a deal breaker for health reform?
- Doctors and malpractice lawyers working together?
- Academic physicians get immunity in Ohio
- Primary care disrespect starts early in medical school
- Madison County: Days as a "judicial hellhole" over?
- Malpractice defense lawyers: Do they lead physicians astray?
- Single payer to fix malpractice?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 4 comments }
The hospital should make the mediation agreement mandatory for all non-EMTALA patients. The hospital isn’t required to admit patients, right?
Can this be used in PRivate practice as well? Seems to be a good fair approach for both the patients and physician since mediation is a good first step and filter, and it still leaves malpractice litigation as an option if the case cannot be mediated to both parties satisfaction. Plus, patient get the money without the long appeals process, and expensive attornies fees.
Seems like a win-win (I don’t think attornies really should have a say in this since they are a 3rd party representative whose economic interests lie with themselves)
How is it a win for the patient to go to non-binding arbitration? They’ll still want an attorney, they’ll still need an expert to present their case to the mediator, and their statute of limitations is still running.
There’s nothing keeping docs from settling early right now.
I believe it can be applied to private practice, as the association is voluntary. I know statements of financial responsibility are upheld and at least in other kinds of commerce, binding arbitration appears to be the rule anymore.
Patients have the privilege of going elsewhere if they don’t want to consent, even if their insurance plans enroll few doctors.
Comments on this entry are closed.