"Studies have consistently found that malpractice plaintiffs fared better in front of judges than in front of juries."

Sounds like Elliott, making claims without proof, references or sources. Another example of poor journalism.

As I said, sounds like Elliott. No sources, no references. No proof.
Number 2 statement according to recent NEJM article is not true.

Should be: 1/3 is less than 1/2. All errors are my own and not my son's

That argument is counterintuitive and likely incorrect. In fact, the bias juries have in favor of doctors tends to suggest that settlement is less likely to occur or at a deeper discount than warranted. Mr. Phillips earlier work was along those lines.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=891120

This a such a load of bull! Everyone knows there are tons of frivolous lawsuits. The majority arent won PRECISELY because of that. And since there are so many goddamn lawyers trying to make a buck ,they're willing to 'go for broke'.

But lets pretend like lawyers are the REAL patient advocates. They care soooo much.

Please.

"There are certainly people that file malpractice suits solely because they know juries can be confused into ruling in their favor even if malpractice never occurred. This would be harder to do with a health court system, and these types of claims would occur less often."

So you believe that a lawyer, who is financing his client's case, and who works for free if he/she loses, is going to file a case they know has no shot on the outside chance they can "confuse" a jury? Even though they still have to survive a summary judgment motion, a well funded defense, and, of course, the fact that doctors win 3-1 in front of juries?

Are you serious?

Health courts are just disguised caps. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem with your theory David is that you can't estimate which ones you might be able to *trick* a jury with. First, because you don't automatically get a jury - you've got the judge as gatekeeper. Then, you've got the appellate court. And since there are no constants in either judge or jury, much less clients, there's no accurate way to assess the risk reward. Not to mention the fact that you've got to attract some seriously, seriously injured clients to make significant money in this arena.

You've got literally no proof that "awards" are all over the place, in fact, of the limited studies that are out there, most show that they track medical bills, which is not surprising.

Given the distinct nature of most med mal cases, I'm unsure what the desire for "predictability", however you're definining it, is. Unless you're an insurance company, that is. In that case, you have ample statistics at your disposal to determine where your risk is.

Your other problem is that you're assuming verdicts equal payouts, which they rarely do.

"Doctors will pay fewer non-economic "jackpot" awards, and will pay less in settlements due to inflated risks caused by unpredictable juries."

Doctors don't "pay" anything, their insurers do. And typically they don't pay what's awarded, because when they do lose, they appeal, and settle sometime during the appeal. And I'd challenge you to find an unjustified "jackpot" award, where you would trade the injury suffered for the "jackpot".

You've got a number of assumptions that simply aren't supported by the facts.

And, all current proposals of "health courts" include arbitrary damage caps, which give justice to no one. Plus, no one has dealt with the cost of these things, which will be significant based on most of the serious proposals for them. I'm unsure why the taxpayer should shoulder the insurers' burden when there is no evidence that it will be a significant improvement over our current system.

Anon, you make valid points (worthy of further debate and study at least; issues like this aren't going to be solved in some blog's comments). But consider that it's not "most" of the awards that cause problems, it's the outliers: even if you correct for the amount of "actual" harm (cost of medical bills), you still end up with a minority of awards that skew the average and standard deviation enough to affect decision-making. That's really what I was referring to. Median awards should remain roughly the same (but even those are skyrocketing, so I'm not too sure the problem isn't more systemic).

As far as identifying awards that people would gladly accept along with the injury, consider http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/10/jackpot-malpractice-verdict-fires-up.html. Yes, I would consider giving up my *life* for $217M, provided that money were used to improve/save the lives of others. Far more good for my family and my community could come from that $217M than I could ever hope to accomplish alive.

(Though since the case was litigated by family members and not the deceased, perhaps it is sufficient for me to say that there are plenty of people who would gladly allow a family member to die in exchange for $217M.)

When you say doctors don't pay, you seem to forget about awards that exceed the coverage provided by the insurance. Either way, you're nitpicking. The physicians are the ones sued, not the insurance companies. The fact that an insurance company is usually going to be the ones writing the checks ought to be irrelevant.

Wait... The rich doctor who whines about declining reimbursement, make 150K or more a year and is among the wealthiest profession in our society has less than $100,000 in assets?

I guess he's lying. Doctor's all have plenty of excess wealth that they never have to spend on malpractice trials, judgements or settlements, and they alll make much more than they are worth. What a liar! It's inconceivable. Anything hew says about what he did for his patients is a lie. He can;t be trusted.

David,

Even the occasional large award doesn't mean that much, it's a payout that matters. And of all the physicians in the US, probably less than 1/10 of 1% have ever paid on an excess judgment-that's hardly a reason to go revamping a constitutional right.

As for your "median awards are skyrocketing" claim, are they rising any faster over a 20 year period than the rate of medical inflation/cost of care? If not, then the increase is to be expected as the bulk of awards is for past and future medical bills.

"ere are plenty of people who would gladly allow a family member to die in exchange for $217M.)"

You've identified the rub. Plus there's the fact that the $217 million amount likely never was paid. Tell me, of all the awards you believe are "jackpot" awards, how many are unjustified, and how many are there compared to the overall number of awards? It should be pretty significant before you go tilting the scales toward the insurers even more, shouldn't it?