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?

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.

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.

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.

No. I 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 when they suspect their chances of winning money (through settlement or winning the case) multipled by the likely amount won is less than their costs of pursuing the case. Basic economics.

If you change this equation, either by reducing the probability of a win or the likely amount won, you change the amount of “merit” the lawyer must prove in order for it to be economical for him to pursue it. If he is more likely to win the case (as the article suggests), he can afford to take on a case with less merit and still win enough cases to cover his costs and make a profit.

However, unpredictability of juries frequently pads risk estimates when physicians decide when to settle, and for how much to settle. Even if juries side with physicians more often than not, awards are all over the place. With a more predictable system geared toward the merits of the case, and less toward the performance of the lawyers, settlements will be more accurate (reflecting the actual harm) and the risks of winning or losing more precise/predictable.

This will lower or eliminate many “high-end” awards (and consequently the average award, though not necessarily the median award), and our financially-savvy lawyer will realize that his cases must have more merit on average for him to make money.

If we believe this article, it would seem to be a win-win situation here. More patients will win cases, because juries aren’t being sympathetic toward doctors. Doctors will pay fewer non-economic “jackpot” awards, and will pay less in settlements due to inflated risks caused by unpredictable juries.

The only “losers” here are the occasional plaintiffs that are awarded far more than fair compensation for their harm, and perhaps the lawyers that are forced to turn away cases with less merit than they used to take previously.

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.

Let me know when doctors line up to pay the hundreds of thousands of medical bills and ordinary expenses of someone one of their colleagues has injured. One of their colleagues who they would never send their own family to.