Arizona Personal Injury Blog - Rants and Raves

The Number of Uninsured Continues to Rise

Staff Writer — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:04:40 GMT

According to a recent article in the physician publication American Medical News, the number of Americans without health insurance has increased to forty-seven million people last year. By comparison, approximately thirty-eight million four hundred thousand Americans had no health insurance insurance in 2000. The American Medical News suggests that one of the reasons for such a large increase in the ranks of the uninsured concern employer benefit cutbacks:

"Overall, the picture is one of continual erosion of employer coverage that is now starting to squeeze the middle class," said Karen Davis, PhD, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation dedicated to improving health care. "It's very troubling to see this dramatic increase."

Several reform suggestions advocated by the American Medical Association to use tax credits and vouchers to faciliate the purchase of health insurance sound promising. However, I cannot understand how uninsured or even insured consumers will benefit by other tort reform aspects of the American Medical Association advocacy agenda. I simply fail to see a coorelation between limitations on accountability for medical errors and access to health insurance and quality medical care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Are On-Line Pharmacies Trafficking Narcotic Drugs?

Staff Writer — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:22:14 GMT

Perhaps you have seen stories or received spam e-mail messages from on-line pharmacies offering instant access to prescription drugs at low cost. You want a percocet or vicodin but your family doctor did not prescribe it for you? No worries. Just log onto your spam-friendly Internet pharmacy, fill out a brief questionnaire, pay for your medication with a credit card and in no time, you will receive your narcotics. Recently, according to a story on MSNBC, on-line pharmacies are making millions selling controlled substances.

Without Internet pharmacies, you must visit your doctor in order to receive a prescription for medication. Your doctor issues the prescription to be filled at the pharmacy. At the pharmacy, you can verify the authenticity, purity and dosage. Your pharmacist must also counsel you on the use, dosage, side effects and any other important details of the medication before you take it for the first time. You also have the opportunity to ask questions and you, your doctor and your pharmacist act together as a team to administer your medication safely.

If you order medication on-line, you lose the effectiveness of medication counseling, and in-person consultation with your physician and team approach to medication safety. You lose the opportunity to confirm the dosage and purity of the medication. In short, the safety systems in place to prescribe and administer medication safely are for the most part lost with fly-by-night Internet pharmacies. As MSNBC reports,

The Drug Enforcement Administration, which reported the additional parcel delivery trucks in southeastern Kentucky, says about 95 percent of products sold by online pharmacies are controlled substances. By comparison, controlled substances amount to roughly 11 percent of the dosages dispensed by legitimate pharmacies.

These details suggest that fly-by-night Internet pharmacies are dispensing controlled substances at an alarming rate and the alarming implication suggests that some of these apparent business cover up illicit drug trade. So long as on-line pharmacies dispense medication in a safe and effective manner and supplement regular in-person physician and pharmacist counseling requirements, on-line pharmacies serve a useful purpose. However, based on the DEA statistics, it appears that several rogue pharmacies may be using the Internet to traffic and sell narcotics while attempting to use a designation as a pharmacy to justify illegal drug trafficking.

What do you think about on-line pharmacies? Do they provide a useful service? Or are a large number of them simply a tool to sell illegal substances? If you have had a bad experience with an on-line pharmacy, share your story. Also, you may consider filing a consumer complaint with the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy who will conduct an investigation to determine compliance with Arizona law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Recent Safety Recalls Highlight Continuing Fight for Accountability

Staff Writer — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:05:27 GMT

Have you heard about recent recalls of tainted pet food involving food safety? How about toy recalls involving possible lead paint exposure? Have you heard about even more toy recalls involving choking hazards for small children? How about laptop computer batteries recalled due to a fire hazards? After hearing about all of these recalls, do you believe that consumer products are safer or more dangerous today when compared to years past?

I hear two different perspectives about product safety. First, I hear that litigation risks have forced companies to voluntarily recall products which would not have been recalled in past years. I hear people argue that safety risks involving a small percentage of consumers should not form a basis for product recall decisions. Alternatively, I hear that consumer products are increasingly becoming more dangerous as manufacturers outsource product design and assembly to locations which do not prioritize product safety.

What do you think? Do you believe products are safer today than they were twenty years ago? Do you believe that the dangers have not changed but that companies simply disclose more information today than twenty years ago? Should information disclosure and product recalls continue or should we simply make our own decisions to buy products instead relying on sellers and manufacturers to design and manufacture them safely? Do you trust that product manufacturers and sellers in business to make a profit will always design and market safe products? When confronted with less costly yet less safe design alternatives, absent some form of accountability, will sellers and manufacturers always choose safety over the bottom line? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Insurers Profits Rising Based on Bad Business Practices?

Staff Writer — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:00:00 GMT

A recent article in the on-line publication Bloomberg suggests that anti-consumer insurance industry practices have led to a stark increase in insurance profits in recent years. According to Bloomberg, consumers have been bearing the burden of bad-faith insurance industry practices:

Insurers often pay 30-60 percent of the cost of rebuilding a damaged home -- even when carriers assure homeowners they're fully covered, thousands of complaints with state insurance departments and civil court cases show.
Paying out less to victims of catastrophes has helped produce record profits. In the past 12 years, insurance company net income has soared -- even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

According to Bloomberg, some insurance companies have spared no detail in their efforts to increase profitability at the expense of the policyholder. For example, in 1992 Allstate Insurance Company hired business consultants McKinsey & Company for advice on improving its efficiency and profitability. After working with McKinsey, Allstate's loss ratios, the ratio of claims paid to premiums received dropped significantly from approximately seventy-nine percent in the 1990's to fifty-eight percent in 2006. Such a major dip in loss ratios led to major increases in profits and stock value. How did the company increase its profits? The Bloomberg article states that Allstate adopted several McKinsey recommendations to minimize claims payouts and reduce loss ratios:

When a policyholder files a claim, first make a low offer, McKinsey advised Allstate. If a client accepts the low amount, Allstate should treat the person with good hands, McKinsey said. If the customer protests or hires a lawyer, Allstate should fight back.

According to various Powerpoint slides apparently prepared by the McKinsey group, these consultants recommended focusing cost-control efforts on minimizing or delaying coverage payouts throughout the claims process:

The slide says Allstate can discourage claimants by delaying settlements and stalling court proceedings.
By postponing payments, insurance companies can hold money longer and make more on their investments -- and often wear down clients to the point of dropping a challenge.

Bloomberg even documented efforts by Allstate to encourage its claims representatives to lie about covered claims rewarding them with merchandise for representatives who denied coverage for claims without any truthful justification. This agressive approach in the claims process outlined in the news article apparently led to a 140% increase in Allstate profits. Other companies have been identified in the article as having engaged in similar conduct. For example, Farmers Insurance Company apparently awarded some type of financial bonuses to its claims representatives who paid out the smallest amounts to insured claimants. Likewise, according to Bloomberg, after State Farm hired McKinsey and engaged in similar cost-cutting moves, its profits doubled to $4.8 billion dollars last year.

Insurance companies like any other for-profit business have the absolute right to earn a profit. However, like any other business, carriers should do so responsibly. I believe carriers should be held accountable for bad-faith decisions which betray the commitments an insurance company makes to its policyholders in its insurance contract. Do you agree? Have you had a bad experience with your insurance carrier? Have you had a good experience with your carrier? If you have had a bad experience with your insurance company, you may consider filing a complaint with the Arizona Department of Insurance. The Department will not represent you but will investigate possible violations of Arizona law. Let me know about your good or bad experiences. I'd like to hear from you and what you think about the insurance industry.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Should Arizona Reconsider Statutory Immunity for Negligent Freeway Maintenance?

Staff Writer — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:13:36 GMT

A couple of days have passed since the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis which led to the deaths of at least five people. The cause of the bridge collapse on I-35W will not be known for quite some time. However, if the I-35W bridge collapsed due to ordinary wear and tear, such a tragedy may have been avoided had the Minnesota Department of Transportation placed a higher priority on bridge repair rather than continuously deferring needed maintenance. According to MSNBC, in 2005, the bridge had been rated by Federal Government inspectors as a step above "intolerable" needing major safety related reinforcements, upgrades or replacement. In 2005, the bridge had been considered

deemed to have met "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it is," according to the federal National Bridge Inventory database of inspection records.

Because it supposedly met minimum tolerable limits, it appears that safety and upgrade funds were not prioritized toward repair or upgrade work on this bridge. Two years later, the bridge collapsed. I guess that sometime after 2005, the bridge stopped meeting "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it its." At what point did this tragedy become preventable? What money could have been made available to do repair work on this bridge after Minnesota transportation officials received notice of safety dangers in 2005? If such a tragic event occurred in Arizona, would the State be held accountable for its refusal to make highway repairs right away? The answer to this question depends in large part on a review of statutes granting the state and other governmental entities immunity from suits challenging its policy and resource allocation decisions.

In Arizona, public entities may not be held responsible for negligence involving the exercise of fundamental government policy including:

1. A determination of whether to seek or whether to provide the resources necessary for any of the following:
(a) The purchase of equipment.
(b) The construction or maintenance of facilities.
(c) The hiring of personnel.
(d) The provision of governmental services.

Generally this means that if the Arizona Department of Transportation made a reasoned decision and considered yet rejected allocating resources to fix a bridge problem, the State may not necessarily be held accountable for its negligent decisions not to provide resources for construction or maintenance. However, it seems to me that if decisions not to allocate resources toward a particular safety project violate reasonable and sound engineering principles which later prove dangerously fatal, the State should not be immune from accountability for negligence. If the State contracted with a private company to make engineering resource-allocation decisions and the company acted negligently, it would accountable to the victims of its misplaced decisions. Why then should our State receive immunity for the same wrongdoing? I believe it may be time to re-examine the reasons for the legislative grant of immunity to this public entity. I wonder how quickly Department of Transportation officials would allocate monies to road and bridge repair knowing they would be held accountable for any unreasonable delays.

With current immunity protections in place, the Arizona Department of Transportation in its Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures manual appears to prioritize safety projects by comparing the costs of safety countermeasures to the costs of fatalities, injuries and property damages. It suggests that each person's life should be valued at $3,000,000 and considers safety projects purely mathematically to minimize costs. Based on the agency policy manual, it will not commit to roadway safety countermeasures or modifications unless the costs of all fatalities, serious injuries and vehicle damages exceed the costs of safety improvements. Apparently the Arizona Department of Transportation is willing to accept death and injury on our state's roadways so long as the aggregate costs for deaths, injuries and vehicle property damages do not exceed the costs for bridge repair, installation of guard rails or other safety improvements. Does this mathematical justification for acceptable death and injury sound reasonable? Do you believe the State should place a value on life and only commit to safety projects when the safety project costs less than the total costs of lives for which it values at $3,000,000 per person? Does this economic model exclude social and non-economic costs of death, injury, property loss and disfigurement? What would happen in Arizona if a highway bridge collapsed. Applying the Arizona Department of Transportation economic formula to the bridge collapse tragedy which occurred in Minnesota, if the bridge repair costs exceeded $15,000,000, representing how the department values the loss of life of five people, policy-makers would accept such losses in Arizona. This is true even if decision-makers received notice of structural problems a few years prior.

Perhaps removing immunity protections for the decisions made by our state transportation department officials will ensure that freeway safety maintenance and upkeep projects occur quickly and efficiently and that the costs of safety improvements will not be compared to the cost of human life before considering particular hazard elimination projects.

What do you think? Should the Arizona Department of Transportation continue to receive immunity protection from various lawsuits against it? Are you satisfied with the safety decisions made and roadway projects undertaken by our Arizona Department of Transportation? Should the Department set as a goal the elimination of all hazards on our roadways or are some hazards, deaths and injuries simply acceptable? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Inside Aquafina Bottles You Will Find Tap Water

Staff Writer — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:21:54 GMT

In case you are wondering exactly where the bottled water comes from that makes up Aquafina water, today you have an answer. No, the water does not come from a spring somewhere high in the mountains of some exotic location. Instead, according to an article in today's Arizona Republic, the source for water found inside the Aquafina water bottle is the same source as our regular tap water. Consumers demanding full and complete disclosure of what exists inside water bottles have been led by an organization known as Corporate Accountability International. This organization has received word from Pepsico, the maker of Aquafina water that it will clarify the source of its water in its product labels. In its press release, the organization indicated:

As part of the Think Outside the Bottle campaign, thousands of people across the US have been urging Pepsi to make changes in the Aquafina label, which includes an image of snow-capped mountains and states "pure water, perfect taste". Though the image implies that the source of Aquafina is mountain spring water, it actually uses tap water as its source. In fact, up to 40% of bottled water uses tap water as its source.

Personally, I believe in accurate and truthful disclosure. Consumers should not be misled and should have truthful information available to them. However, as long as the water inside Aquafina bottles has gone through the purification and osmosis process required to make it pure and drinkable, I do not care whether comes from the tap or from the Alps.

The Corporate Accountability International organization has as its goal:

winning campaigns that challenge irresponsible and dangerous corporate actions around the world.

It appears that this organization has successfully achieved its goal in its "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign. Perhaps success with this campaign can lead to other successes changing destructive or harmful behavior by industries or individuals who cause harm. Maybe with these organizations changing destructive behavior before it causes harm, the use of litigation may be properly limited to a tool of last resort to hold wrongdoers accountable. What do you think?

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Michael Moore's Movie "Sicko" and Its Portrayal of US Healthcare

Staff Writer — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:00:00 GMT

Michael Moore released a new movie about the system of healthcare in the United States. In the movie, he portrays our healthcare system as one in crisis. Do you believe our healthcare system in this country provides the best quality of care to patients at a reasonable cost? Have you seen the movie Sicko? Do you think the movie accurately portrays problems with our healthcare system in America? Do you believe our healthcare system is in a crisis? I have not seen the movie but am interested in hearing from anybody who has.

According to press accounts, Moore presents stories about patients and their problems receiving quality healthcare. He also compares the healthcare system in the United States with systems in other countries and apparently advocates for a universal healthcare system in this country. Moore presents examples of patients who were evicted from their homes because they received costly medical services but could not afford to pay for the care. In another example, Moore presents a patient who, due to the overburdensome cost, had to choose between re-attachment of a severed index or ring finger but not both. In contrast, a Canadian patient using that country's healthcare system would have been able to have all of his severed fingers re-attached at no cost.

I understand that the movie seems to advocate eliminating health insurance companies altogether from our system of healthcare and instead, providing a single payor government run or administered system for everybody. I am not sure our country can look to mandatory government run healthcare as the catchall answer to the complex problems and questions about access to healthcare and quality of service. I always have concerns when people suggest our government can create a new large bureaucratic program and have this program deliver quality services to everybody at low or no cost. Look at the Veterans Administration as an example of how medical care could be administered to patients and taxpayers throughout the country. Can we honestly say that our military veterans who sacrifice so much for this country receive quality healthcare? Based upon recent news accounts about problems at Walter Reed Medical Center and other VA medical facilities across the country, I do not believe that our military veterans receive the highest quality of medical care. If our military veterans do not receive adequate and quality healthcare, how can we believe that our government can successfully administer a healthcare program for everybody? Also, even if our government can successfully create a new bureaucracy to oversee healthcare delivery, what will this program cost? Our budget deficit already requires massive government borrowing which crowds out private sector access to capital. We probably cannot create such a massive bureaucracy without increasing taxes. Perhaps we should consider new taxes or user fees if raising taxes could lead to a reasonable resolution of the problems we see in our healthcare system. I am just not convinced that a new government program is the answer.

Last year, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill requiring health insurance for all citizens. According to the Washington Post,

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill . . . that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.
Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

This approach involves providing state subsidies for low income citizens; however, I do not know whether the legislation addresses problems associated with denial of coverage for pre-existing health conditions. The legislation took effect as of July 1 this year and presents one approach to addressing problems with the uninsured. Other health care policy study groups have been evaluating options and will likely present research in response to the Moore movie. Perhaps some of the suggestions in the Massachusetts model, the Rand Project, or other research initiatives can be looked upon and applied nationally if successful.

I commend Michael Moore for drawing our nation's attention to the problem with healthcare in America and plan to see the movie soon. I do not necessarily agree with his apparent suggested solution; however, at least he increased our awareness of healthcare problems. Hopefully policymakers can come up with creative solutions to improve the quality and cost of care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Frivolous Lawsuit Against Dryclear Dismissed

Staff Writer — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:00:00 GMT

In early May, I wrote about an example of a likely frivolous lawsuit. If you recall, the drycleaning business in that case lost a pair of pants and the Plaintiff originally demanded compensation totalling $65,000,000 even after the business compensated him for the lost pants. In my earlier posting, I suggested that our system of justice has legitimate safeguards to prevent frivolous litigation from moving forward indicating that:

I can only hope that we focus the same attention on this lawsuit when it gets dismissed so that we can confirm that our judicial system works.

Well just this week, the judge assigned to the case dismissed the frivolous lawsuit. The judge also directed the drycleaning business to submit briefs on the question of whether the plaintiff should face sanctions and attorney's fees to repay the defendants' litigation costs.

The judge reviewed the allegations in the lawsuit and made a reasoned decision to dismiss it and give serious consideration to sanctioning the Plaintiff for demanding such outrageous damages and proceeding forward with frivolous litigation.

If the evidence shows that a case is frivolous and should never have been filed, fortunately, the offending litigant can be sanctioned to prevent future frivolous conduct. The result in this case reinforces my opinion that our system of justice works and does not need wholesale changes. Plaintiffs who file frivolous cases should face sanctions but this drycleaner lawsuit does not mean that our judicial system faces a large number of frivolous lawsuits. In my opinion, frivolous drycleaner cases do not clog our courts. In fact, to the contrary, I believe that the overwhelming number of civil lawsuits in our court system today involves claims which have merit. Additionally, I believe that this drycleaner lawsuit presents an example of why our system of justice works. Do you believe differently?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Insurer and Its Attorneys Sanctioned in 9/11 Litigation

Staff Writer — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:41:04 GMT

In an unfortunate series of events, recently two law firms and an insurance company client involved in coverage litigation concerning the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy have been sanctioned a total sum of $1.25 million dollars. The judge sanctioned these parties for failing to disclose various key documents concerning applicability of insurance coverage and other discovery abuses which have:

added years and millions of dollars to the cost of prosecuting suits on behalf of people who died or were injured or suffered property loss in the 2001 attacks.

Pending insurance coverage litigation over the last several years involved whether private insurance carriers ever intended to insure various entities or persons who suffered property loss or loss of life in the September 11 tragedy. Usually the question of coverage involves a detailed review of the terms and conditions of an insurance policy together with other materials or memoranda prepared prior to issuing a policy and binding coverage.

One law firm representing Zurich Insurance Company in the coverage litigation suggested at a hearing in December, 2003 that:

"We have plenty of evidence that, believe me, we can invoke on this issue of whether [the Port Authority] is an additional insured at all."
The judge said those representations were contradicted by the 62-page document and other evidence showing that Zurich employees knew the liability insurance coverage sought by Larry Silverstein's World Trade Center Properties was meant to include the Port Authority.

The practice of destroying relevant documents or omitting disclosure of relevant information should never occur in any context in any litigation by any party. Unfortunately, this series of events occurred in the context of litigation involving a dark event in our nation's history. Kudos to the judge for identifying the issues and sanctioning the offending parties. Hopefully exposing the conduct and sanctioning the offending parties will curb further discovery abuses and lead to a prompt resolution of these coverage claims.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

The Tort Reform Debate

Staff Writer — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:00:01 GMT

I received a few responses to my recent posting about the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) which present different perspectives on an emotionally charged tort reform debate. Thank you to those who commented. Although we do not necessarily share the same opinions, I appreciate your willingness to post your thoughts and believe that we can respectfully disagree on some issues in this debate in as professional a manner as possible. Although some other reforms may be available to assist in improving the quality of care, I still believe that enough evidence in California exists to show that damage caps are not a successful tool to do so. The recent death of a victim waiting in an emergency room for treatment cannot be looked upon favorably as an example of quality health care in California. Clearly something went wrong in the hospital. I do not believe that limiting the damages which the decedent's family can recover will ever provide incentives for the hospital emergency department to change its patient safety systems.

We hear stories that doctors supposedly are being driven out of practice because they cannot afford malpractice insurance premiums. At the same time, we hear stories about insurance company profits reaching all-time highs. Patients seeking quality health care get caught somewhere in between both sides of this hotly contested debate. I believe that tort reform should focus on the goal of quality improvements and access to health care. I do not believe it should mean that injured victims must recover less than the total value of their damages when something goes wrong. If we examine some simple things the medical profession can do to improve care and reduce insurance premiums, doctors should not be driven from practice either.

In a prior posting about the malpractice debate in Arizona I relayed my thoughts on tort reform. In this posting, you will see a link which contains support for my suggestion that the California MICRA has not been effective in improving quality. According to some commentators,

California's caps did not help doctors--insurance reform did.
"California doctors' premiums increased by 450% in the first 13 years after the 1975 passage of MICRA and only began to decrease after voters enacted the insurance reform initiative known as Proposition 103." (Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, "How Insurance Reform Lowered Doctor's Medical Malpractice Rates In California...And How Malpractice Caps Failed," March 2003, http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/rp/1008.pdf
"While MICRA was the legislature's attempt at remedying the medical malpractice crisis in California in 1975, it did not substantially reduce the relative risk of medical malpractice insurance in California." (James Robertson, Assistant Vice President and Associate Actuary, SCIPIE Indemnity Company (California's second largest medical malpractice insurer), in written testimony responding to a question from an administrative law judge who is overseeing a case in which SCIPIE has requested a 15.6 % rate hike. April 30, 2003)

The debate over quality health care should not involve a dispute between lawyers and doctors. My thoughts on this issue are simple. I do not believe our government should tell a victim of a negligent care provider how much their injury should be worth. How does telling a victim how much a botched procedure is worth somehow improve the number of doctors in our profession or the quality of health care. Incidentally I also do not believe we should be telling insurance companies how much profit they should earn and how much malpractice premiums they should charge. During this debate about how supposedly doctors are leaving the profession in large numbers, I continue to hear stories about how insurance carriers are reporting record profits. If tort reform advocates are truly even-handed, shouldn't tort reform advocates support caps on insurance company profits?

I am not a fan of government intervention in the private sector. I do not believe government interference in the private sector creates an efficient market. I do not believe damage caps or caps on insurance company profit will lead to more doctors and a higher quality of care. I just believe that providers who cause patient injuries should be held accountable. As indicated in my prior posting,

Consumer advocates suggest that malpractice limits prevent patients who suffer egregious harm from recovering adequate compensation for real injuries. On the other side of the debate, physicians blame the justice system for escalating insurance premiums. It seems to me that doctors and patients should both agree that quality care should the be first and foremost priority and when somebody suffers harm due to the conduct of a care provider, that individual should be held accountable. It also seems to me that physicians should not have to pay skyrocketing health insurance premiums only to watch these insurance premiums lead to skyrocketing insurance company profits. Perhaps capping insurance company profits or placing some type of windfall profits tax on insurance companies in the context of this debate may actually lead to reduced malpractice premiums. From a pure economic perspective, government intervention into the private sector is inefficient, irrespective of whether this intervention is described as malpractice reform or a windfall profits tax on insurance carriers. If we can get away from advocating any type of government intervention by way of tort reform or a caps on insurance company profits, then we can look to other ways to control costs and promote quality care.

Using technology to control cost and improve health care quality can be a mutually acceptable tool to everyone in this hotly contested debate. Various commentators discussing tort reform suggest that simply embracing technology can enhance quality of care, prevent systematic breakdowns, and prevent the yearly deaths of an estimated 44,000 to 98,000 patients caused by medical errors as estimated in a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine. Just today, an article in the legal technology section of the on line publication Law.Com suggested that the use of electronic prescriptions can minimize adverse drug events, save lives and lower costs of care:

HHS, in a recent report to Congress, cited expert projections that e-prescribing could avoid more than 2 million adverse drug events annually, 130,000 of which are life-threatening. Even so, five government-funded e-prescribing pilot projects did not establish the effect on patient safety, the report said, noting the role of office staff members in handling e-prescribing tasks. The effect on safety requires more study, the report said.

Perhaps other simple and non-controversial tools can also improve care. Concentrating on these tools and away from rhetoric will no doubt benefit everyone. Do you have other ideas about how to improve the quality of medical care which do not involve either tort or insurance reform?

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer