Medical malpractice reform by President Obama and the White House

The reason that Obama and the Dems are not pursuing tort reform is simple; they don’t believe in it. Allotting $25 million dollars for some ‘pilot projects’ when the price tag for health care reform approaches $1 trillion speaks for itself. To those physicians who supported Obama, tort reform stagnation is one serious side-effect of your vote. Those who support the status quo are generally enriched by the current system. While we physicians are not perfect, I don’t think we would support policies that benefitted us to the medical detriment of our patients. I can’t say the same for lawyers.

That’s because for the primary backers of tort reform, insurers, caps are all that matter. They’re not really interested in paying more victims faster. Physicians have just been scared into being the face for the industry. Why do you think issues that really affect physician pay get so little play compared to tort reform? Because there’s no real big money behind it.

Patient safety is a laudable goal, of course, but it will not significantly impact on excessive litigation against physicians. In my view, we need a filter up front that will screen out cases without merit or defendants that are innocent, rather then have them wait months or years until they are released. Unlike caps, this would target the primary defect that exists now of using a legal net that ensnares too many innocents. Lawyers shouldn’t object since these innocent parties are ultimately dropped from the case anyway.

It is a wonderful idea to have statements under oath, with specific, pre-agreed consequences for any party committing perjury.
Parties subject to this requirement must include not only accused medical personnel but plaintiffs, plaintiff attorneys, and plaintiff expert witnesses.
Consequences for deceit must be as severe on plaintiffs and their business partners on the predatory litigation as on medical providers (defendants).

“But whatever steps we pursue, medical liability reform must be just one part of broader health insurance reform”

Why? Liability reform is needed throughout our society. It really should be a separate bill. Tort is becoming such a large part of our society we tend not to see it anymore. All the release forms we have to sign – when renting skates or parking in parking lot, etc. We are a people who lare led around in circles by attorneys and corporations pushing our fear buttons with advertisements and legalese.

The premise for Obama style tort reform is that law suits can be avoided if doctors were more careful at their craft. Holding doctors accountable is dear to the advisers to the Presidents.If holding accountable were efficacious, then why does New York State have no-fault auto insurance? No matter the care taken, medical procedures will always have some residual rate of adverse outcomes.

The second problem with “holding accountable” is that litigation poorly sifts valid clams from invalid clams. Junk science was so rampant that the Supreme Court issued Daubert.

Another problem with our system extant is that the wrong people buy malpractice insurance. In buying most insurance, life, auto, homeowner… the consumer can trade coverage for premiums. Now a gifted lawyer sets coverage at high levels after an insured event. That is why caps make some sense. I would rather have patients buy adverse outcome insurance and have settlements through administrative proceedings.