Hawaii Personal Injury Blog - lawsuit abuse

Tort Reform Shows the Connection Between Big Insurance and the Republican Party

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:54:44 GMT

Do you love your insurance company? I'm not talking about the friendly Agent who sold you the policy and sends you a pocket calendar on your birthday each year. I love my agent. He is a great guy. But the insurance company? They are all bad. The take our premiums and deny our claims. And insurance industry (Big Insurance) CEO's and CFO's live in mansions and have private jets. That bothers me, particularly when they lobby Congress to take away citizen's rights to trial by jury.

I notice that it is the Republican Party that is in bed with Big Insurance. That is a fact that is not in dispute on the mainland and in Congress. Big Insurance money flows to the Republican Party. In Hawaii it is a little different. We don't really have a Republican Party in Hawaii. Only a handful of legislators are Republican. We do have a Republican Governor and Lt. Governor. They are big supporters of whatever the insurance industry wants and they get big support from the Big Insurance lobbyists and their bankrolls. But the democratic legislators in Hawaii are not really democrats. They joined the democratic party because that was the only way to get elected. Over a 30 year period more and more stealth Republicans got elected as Democrats in Hawaii politics. So, for instance, in the last legislative session, the most powerful Democratic legislator, Calvin Say, joined with Governor Lingle, the insurance industry and doctors to take away people's rights to when they are injured by negligent doctors or hospitals and suffer an avoidable injury. Hawaii is different. Its a one party state and has been corrupted by elected officials who have no code of beliefs other than to get re-elected.

The truth about tort reform and the Big Insurance spin phrase Lawsuit Abuse" is well documented and Calvin Say and Governor Lingle and BIG Insurance know the truth.

Mistakes Made in Medical Care are the Top Cause of Accidental Death in America.

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People

Sen. Corker backs tort reform at town hall meeting.

The Tennessean (8/26) reports, "U.S. Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN] told a packed Cannon Senior Center community room Tuesday that health care legislation that passed a House committee is 'going in the circular file.' 'The HELP (Health, Labor, Education & Pension) Committee Senate bill is going in the trash can,' he added." Speaking on healthcare reform, "Corker agreed that tort reform and tax code changes are needed. 'I think you should put a cap on the tax benefit some companies receive for providing health insurance,' he said."

Columnist calls for tort reform.

In a column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (8/26), Reg Henry writes, "A major reason why other countries manage to have a universal health-care system for much cheaper than our best-health-care-in-the-world-only-for-those-who-can-afford-it system is that their doctors do not have to pay huge insurance premiums because the lawyers are sitting up trees like so many vultures ready to feed on their mistakes." Yet "like the dog that didn't bark in the night, tort reform -- the one thing that could cut medical costs substantially -- is barely mentioned in the health-care debate. Unfortunately, the reason for this is obvious. While lawyers contribute to both parties, Democrats just love trial lawyers and they return the infatuation." It is also obvious "that people who are really done a wrong as a result of medical malpractice...should be justly compensated. However, justly compensated shouldn't mean being enriched by a judicial lottery system that increases medical costs every time the lawyers spin the wheel."

Hancock: Tort reform not the answer.

In a column in the Baltimore Sun (8/26), Jay Hancock writes, "Tort reform is not the solution to the health care crisis. The absence of tort reform is not a reason to reject what's going on in Washington." A more drastic malpractice makeover "would deliver substantial [damages] - but only once. New Zealand has a no-fault medical injury system in which lawsuits are essentially banned and experts decide how much to award victims. But even such a system, which nobody is talking about in the United States, would cut health care costs by maybe 7 percent at the most," according to Gerard Anderson, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "That includes costs from defensive medicine."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Death Or Injury From Misdiagnosis Stories

Wayne Parsons — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:28:12 GMT

I have written about the news story that is shaking the country: DEAD BY MISTAKE. Kudos to Hearst News for telling the truth to the public!

Here are the stories behind DEAD BY MISTAKE.

Mother wants her daughter back.

Sharon Moore

Trevor Nelson.

I cannot add to these tragic stories. They were preventable. They could have been avoided. My plea to doctors and hospitals in Hawaii and elsewhere is to spend more time on patient care and good medicine and less time lobbying to make it impossible for injured patients from avoidable medical errors to be made whole. Other articles of interest:

Mistakes Made in Medical Care are the Top Cause of Accidental Death in America.

Doctor Misdiagnosis Results In Alarming Number of Avoidable Injuries And Death

Dead By Mistake: Must Read For All Consumers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Suit says hospital staff wrongly declared infant dead

Wayne Parsons — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:38:43 GMT

The news story is pretty frightening. Incompetence comes to mind.

The staff at a Charleston, South Carolina hospital informed them the parents of a baby born that the child died. Can you imagine?

The bereft parents learned later that their son was alive.

Charleston Area Medical Center, Pediatrix Medical Group and Dr. Davangere M. Jayaram are named as co-defendants in medical malpractice suit filed by Carmela and Joseph Newhouse of Elkview. In their complaint filed July 28 in Kanawha Circuit Court, the New houses allege Jayapura, and staff from Pediatrics and CAMC misinformed them of the death of their son, Camren, who is now permanently injured after his premature removal from life-support systems.

According to court records, the Newhouses sought help from Pediatrix and Jayapura at CAMC's Women's and Children's Hospital immediately after he was born July 3, 2008. Since his birth certificate shows he was born at Thomas Memorial Hospital in South Charleston, Camren was taken to Women's and Children's due to apparent complications.

The father held what he thought was his dead son, Camren, for the last time when he detected faint hints of life. Dad was not a doctor. This was in a hospital. Where was the doctor? I repeat: WHERE WAS THE DOCTOR?

Mom and dad learned that it took 28 minutes for hospital staff to make a determination that Camren was breathing. A half hour when their baby was deprived of oxygen for a prolonged period with permanent and irreversible brain and central nervous system injury.

Camren was alone. All of us try to remember that day. Our birth. Muslin or Christian. Rich or poor.

Camren was alone. His mom was coming through the miracle of the birth of a child. They took Camren away from her. She trusted them.

Dad was worrying about Mom because guys are blown away by child birth ... and he loves Mom.

Twenty-eight minutes. The doctors took away Camren's freedom. The freedom to be normal.

Will a doctor or hospital administrator talk to Camren's parents about this? I am so tired of hearing the lobbyists and the spin doctors for doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking for protection from Camren's parents.

Can you turn your back on them?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Mistakes Made in Medical Care are the Top Cause of Accidental Death in America.

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:53:29 GMT

Let me start with the facts.

98,000 Americans die from preventable medical errors each year!

99,000 Americans die from preventable hospital acquired infections each year!

The cat is out of the bag. Its all over the news. How many of you have read or heard about the massive expose of the death toll from careless doctors and poorly run hospitals in DEAD BY MISTAKE? As reported in Hearst Newspapers across the country the story starts with Richard Flagg:

Richard Flagg drowned in his own blood.

Stanley Stinnett choked on his own vomit.

Both were victims of the leading cause of accidental death in America -- mistakes made in medical care.

Experts estimate that a staggering 98,000 people die from preventable medical errors each year. More Americans die each month of preventable medical injuries than died in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition, a federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study concluded that 99,000 patients a year succumb to hospital-acquired infections. Almost all of those deaths, experts say, also are preventable.

My friend Moon Saito died in Honolulu a few weeks ago during this beautiful Hawaiian summer. Moon was a member of the famed 442nd Infantry _ the Go For Broke Japanese Americans _ who proved their patriotism in WW II. For those who knew Moon Saito they saw a hero and ultimate bravery and sacrifice in a humble and gracious and loving man.

Moon didn't die from a medical error but I thought of Moon Saito when I read about Richard Flagg. I felt a mix of emotions, first sadness and then anger. Moon Saito never met Richard Flagg but I think they would have been friends. They were both fighters. Both warriors. Both hero's. Both good men.

I write in honor of Richard Flagg. After fighting for us and for the United States of America in Viet Nam, Richard came home to fight for his life in a health care system where doctors and hospitals spend too much time trying to escape responsibility for injury and killing people and too little time on patient care. JoAnne Doroshow of The Center For Justice & Democracy helped get Richard Flagg's sad story out into the public eye. Here is what Richard Flagg said at the Forum on Malpractice: Hearing Hosted by U.S. Representative John Conyers, 108th Cong. 69-72 (Feb. 11, 2003):

Thank you for allowing this forum, and thank you to Public Citizen and the Center for Justice & Democracy for caring. My name is Richard Flagg, and I'm 62 years old. I reside in Jersey City, New Jersey. I'm a veteran from Vietnam, a father, and a victim of malpractice.

In September 2000, I was admitted to the hospital in New Jersey to have a simple, small tumor from my left lung. At the time it was considered to be optional surgery, and the only reason I was there was because I was having bleeding problems if I ever had a lung infection. So I went in with that thought in mind, and the doctors paid no attention to protocol. The hospital paid no attention to protocol. They wheeled me into the operating room without asking why I was there, what I was going to be operated on for, and as a consequence, the tumor that was in my left lung is still in my left lung, and three quarters of my right lung is gone, the healthy lung. I'm now confined 24 hours a day, seven days a week to an oxygen hose.

Two years ago I was a barge captain in the United States Merchant Marines. I could walk at a fast pace from bow to stern of a 300-foot ship in a very short time. I was strong. I was in good shape. Today I'm a physical wreck. I'm an emotional wreck. All of this was done to me, but is that why we're here? That's part of it. The biggest part of it is what's happening today.

The tail is definitely wagging the dog. The insurance companies are being allowed to put out misinformation, to talk about things that aren't true. They're allowed to overcharge. Now, I'm somewhat of an amateur historian, and I do have a degree in history, as well as one in biology and a minor in chemistry, and it seems to me that back in 1789 when the Constitution of the United States was written our forefathers had in mind one thing. Justice in this country was to be decided by a jury of our peers. This is not true today. It is in criminal cases. It is in murders. It is in robberies. It isn't in medical malpractice.

If Mr. Bush has his way and the states that already have these caps on certain parts of tort reform, this is what we can look forward to getting worse and worse. I made a quote on a forum on a Web site last week in New Jersey. Someone asked me how do you feel about what's happening with tort reform. I answered it very simply. Once you start taking a person's individual rights and freedoms of our American citizens away, where does it stop? It doesn't, and I referenced Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and so forth down the line. I received 125 answers, all of them saying thank you; we didn't know.

There is our problem today. It's mostly misinformation or lack of information. I would like to see people in this room, each one become ambassadors to this. Talk as hard and as long as you can to stop what's happened. That's what we need more than anything else. Thank you very much.

Ask the insurance companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Lou Dobbs, the AMA and your own doctors and hospitals why they don't work on solving this death and injury problem and stop trying to get gullible politicians to make them exempt for accountability or responsibility for their wrongs! I get so mad when I hear them shout about lawsuit abuse when the real problem is that they are killing people! Read my article on the history of this attempt by the rich and powerful medical profession and the corrupt insurance industry to escape accountability and tell me what you think.

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People

There are less than 50 medical malpractice claims in Hawaii. Doctors and insurance companies have made bringing a valid claim almost impossible and so expensive that almost no lawyers do medical malpractice cases anymore. Meanwhile patients are injured and dying every day.

Why does Richard Flagg have to fight for his life at home against insurance companies and politicians who put profits before people? Just in case you think the word "justice" is a platitude, think about Richard Flagg. When someone talks to you about lawsuit abuse or tort reform, think about the indignity and abuse that Richard Flagg endured at the hands of the medical profession. Don't let this happen to anyone else.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Doctors Starting Salaries - Do We Really Feel Sorry For People Who Make This Much?

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:43:26 GMT

In the “Physician Placement Starting Salary Survey: 2007 Report Based on 2006 Data,” conducted in collaboration with the National Association of Physician Recruiters, found that physician-owned practices offered comparable salaries to hospital/IDS salaries for family practice without obstetrics ($130,000 versus $135,000), general internal medicine ($150,000 vs. $145,000) and noninvasive diagnostic radiology ($350,000 vs. $345,000). The pay-scales are high. Doctors can easily make over $1 million per year. I am not complaining about their salaries. I am complaining about their whining about lawsuit abuse. It does not exist and yet these rich doctors are using it to trick the public on tort reform.

Do we feel so sorry for doctors who make this much, to say its okay to injure your patients and pay nothing for their suffering? That is what the AMA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say that doctors want. There are almost no lawsuits against doctors. In Hawaii there were less than 30 last year. The doctors are making a lot of money. Why does everyone feel sorry for them?

Or maybe you don't feel sorry for them. I am looking for a sense of what patients feel about doctors' salaries and doctors injuring patients. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Insurance Companies Are The Problem With Our Health Care System - We Must Have Single Payer

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:50:13 GMT

In an article written by doctors, the myth of lawsuit abuse as being the cause of the cost of health care is once again debunked. In Fact and Fiction: Debunking Myths in the US Healthcare System, by Sarpel, Umut MD; Vladeck, Bruce C. PhD; Divino, Celia M. MD; Klotman, Paul E. MD, published in the Annals of Surgery on April 2008 - Volume 247 - Issue 4 - pp 563-569 the doctors conclude:

The United States has the most expensive and complex healthcare system in the world. Despite the magnitude of funds spent on the system, Americans do not achieve the high standards of health seen in other developed countries. The current model of health insurance has failed to deliver efficient and effective healthcare. The administrative costs and lack of buying power that arise out of the existing multipayer system are at the root of the problem. The current system also directly contributes to the rising number of uninsured and underinsured Americans. This lack of insurance leads to poorer health outcomes, and a significant amount of money is lost into the system by paying for these complications. Experience from other countries suggests that tangible improvements can occur with conversion to a single-payer system. However, previous efforts at reform have stalled. There are many myths commonly held true by both patients and physicians. This inscrutability of the US healthcare system may be the major deterrent to its improvement. A discussion of these myths can lead to increased awareness of the inequality of our healthcare system and the possibilities for improvement.

In a list of popular articles in MDLinx - Neurology, this one ranked #4 meaning the medical profession is reading about the myths that their lobbyists at the AMA and The U.S. Chamber of Commerce are spreading about lawsuit abuse.

I have written on this recently and hope you will read additional facts in these articles:

Lawsuit Abuse? Medical Malpractice Crisis? Shame on Doctors and the AMA!

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice

Focusing on reform of the insurance industry is necessary if our country is going to move forward economically. Doctors are not being paid fairly for their work because of the insurance industry stranglehold on the health care system. Taxpayers are left holding the bag for the large numbers of uninsured and underinsured patients. People are sick and not getting treatment or are getting inadequate treatment.

As an attorney I am willing to support doctors in taking on the real enemy, insurance companies. Are there any doctors willing to break ranks with the AMA and its co-conspirator the U.S. Chamber of Commerce both of which sip champagne with the insurance executives at our expense? I'd love to see a doctor stand up to Big Insurance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Lawsuit Abuse? Medical Malpractice Crisis? Shame on Doctors and the AMA!

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:33:01 GMT

Headline news: Medical Malpractice Payments Fall to Record Low, Public Citizen Study Shows:

Medical malpractice payments were at or near record lows in 2008, but the decline almost certainly indicates that a lower percentage of injured patients received compensation, not that health safety has improved, Public Citizen reported in a study released today.

Medical malpractice is so common, and litigation over it so rare, that between three and seven Americans die from medical errors for every one who receives a payment for any malpractice claim, Public Citizens analysis of medical malpractice payment data and the best available patient safety estimates indicate.

For the third straight year, 2008 saw the lowest number of medical malpractice payments since the federal governments National Practitioner Data Bank began tracking such data in 1990. The 11,037 payments in 2008 were 30.7 percent lower than the average number of payments recorded by the NPDB in all previous years. Ratios of payments per capita and per physician have fallen even lower compared to historical norms. There were 13.5 payments per million physicians in 2006 (the most recent year for which the number of physicians is available), which is 29.2 percent lower than the average in previous years. The value of payments in 2008 (as distinct from the number of payments) was the lowest or second lowest on record, depending on the method used to adjust for inflation.

The sad history of doctors, the AMA and their insurance companies - along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - trying to fool the American public has been highlighted once more by the facts. I am waiting to see a doctor tell me that he is not on the side of the medical and insurance company scam. Lawsuit Abuse is a fiction. I am sick and tired of the Big Lie. I am trial attorney and I am proud of what I do.

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice

Rather than spend millions to deceive you folks about lawsuit abuse why isn't the medical profession trying to find and weed out careless doctors? When did they ever do that?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:00:25 GMT

Facts are Stubborn things

Does saying something is a fact make it one? From the context of this essay supporting tort reform, Dr. Russell Turk appears to believe so. In his essay, Dr. Turk makes a number of claims. His support for these claims is a mixture of equal parts empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and contempt for anyone who is not a doctor. None of the assertions he presents as fact is nearly so clear as he would have us believe. Let’s examine two of these claims, and see how his certainty holds up.

His first claim is that liability increases medical malpractice insurance premiums. He offers little support for this claim however apart from the statements that premiums are high and that many doctors get sued. For this claim to be true either the total number of tort claims must have increased or the awards in individual judgments must have radically increased. If an increase in damage awards were responsible, one would expect to see lower payouts and commensurately lower premiums in states that have statutorily capped such payouts. So, have we seen an explosion in tort claims or lower premiums in capped states? The short answer is no, we have not.

A study of malpractice claims in Texas 1988-2002 found after controlling for inflation and population growth that there had been a decline in the number of small claims (under $25,000) and that the number of large claims had remained roughly constant. (Bernard S. Black 2005). Moreover, the amounts of those paid claims only increased by 0.8-1.2 percent per year. Id.

As for the effects of capped non-economic damages, one national study found that while payouts did decline in the nineteen states that then had caps, premiums in capped states rose far faster than those in uncapped states. (Martin D. Weiss 2003) In states with statutory caps, the median annual premium increased 48.2%, while those states without caps saw a median increase of only 35.9%. Id. This suggests that while something is driving premiums higher, it isn’t malpractice claims. More recent studies show exactly the same findings.

In short, there is no evidence of an explosion in either the number of tort claims or the size of judgments. It is possible that Dr. Turk has empirical evidence that contradicts the findings of these surveys. However, as he has declined to provide any of it, we must dismiss his claim.

Dr. Turk’s second claim is that medical malpractice liability causes doctors to practice “defensive medicine” which drives up the overall costs of healthcare. His evidence for this contention consists of several anecdotes concerning patients who did not take his advice, an anecdote about an attorney, and an assertion that the rate at which doctors perform cesarean sections has skyrocketed due to liability concern. The anecdotal data is unfalsifiable, and thus worthless. He provides no evidence that defensive medicine causes an increase in c-sections, apart from his assertion. Let us examine the most empirical of his claims and see what truth, if any, it holds.

Perhaps the most common claim about defensive medicine is that it leads to massive increases in medically unnecessary cesarean sections. Dr. Turk claims that the cesarean rate in Connecticut now exceeds forty percent. He provides no citation for this. Nor does he tell us what the rate was previously, making it difficult to calculate the increase. What research I have found however, suggests his claim is simply false. This study, from 2000, finds the rate of births by primary cesarean section in Connecticut to be 12.4 percent.

In any event, what research that has been done on this question suggests that while there may have been an increase in c-sections due to liability risk, the increase has been miniscule. One estimate suggests that a sixty percent reduction in physician premiums would cause the cesarean section rate to decline 0.48 percent. (Lisa Dubay 1999) Moreover, while cesarean rates have increased, they have done so worldwide. Rates have increased even in New Zealand, a nation in which the state provides all healthcare, and which has eliminated its tort system entirely. Without better evidentiary support than Dr. Turk has provided thus far, this claim must also be dismissed.

It is clear that that the amount of money Americans spend on healthcare is increasing. There are any number of explanations for this, some more or less convincing than others. It is further clear that Americans feel they spend too much on healthcare and are searching for policy alternatives that will reduce those costs without worsening the quality of care. It is difficult to disagree with any of that. However, as we assess policy choices we need to do it in light of facts, not demagoguery or scare-mongering. Dr. Turk clearly has a strong set of policy preferences. It is difficult however, to assess the facts on which they are based, as he simply does not provide any.

Works Cited:

Bernard S. Black, Charles Silver, David A. Hyman, William M. Sage. "Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas, 1988-2002." 2 J. Empirical Legal Studies, 2005: 207.

Lisa Dubay, Robert Kaestner, Timothy Waidman. "The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates." 18 J. of Health Economics, 1999: 491.

Martin D. Weiss, Melissa Gannon, Stephanie Eakins. edical Malpractice Caps: The Impact of Non-Economic Damage Caps on Physician Premiums, Claims Payout Levels, and Availability of Coverage. Weiss Ratings, Inc., 2003.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

House lawmakers hear debate over medical device preemption.

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:40:16 GMT

CQ HealthBeat (5/14, Kim) reports that the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee "heard witness testimony on a measure that would allow consumers to sue companies under state law for injuries sustained by sophisticated medical devices" on Tuesday. Supporters of HR 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, said "that the bill would ensure product safety and consumer protection, while opponents argued that the bill would stifle life-saving medical innovation and impose unnecessary regulation on medical device companies." The bill is in response "to a Supreme Court ruling issued last year that states that under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, certain medical devices that must go through Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pre-marketing approval are preempted from being sued for liability under state law." That decision "has already resulted in 1,400 injury cases being thrown out of court, said Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) [a] co-sponsor of the bill. It's the possibility of litigation that is one of the most powerful incentives to safety, Waxman said."

NPR (5/13, Silberner) reported, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2008 that an OK from the Food and Drug Administration for a high-tech medical device is all a manufacturer needs to avoid being sued in state court." Now, "Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) wants to change that." He said, "There are problems with medical devices that arise outside of the FDA approval process because that process is limited. ... And we should not preclude people from suing and recovering damages if something comes up."

Modern Healthcare (5/13, Rhea) reported that House lawmakers "listened to testimony from experts and patients and argued the merits of the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009." The act is "sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.)" and "would negate the Supreme Court's decision in last year's Riegel vs. Medtronic case, which involved a Medtronic-manufactured balloon catheter that ruptured inside the patient during coronary artery surgery."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama Adminstration Makes The Devil's Deal With The Insurance Industry

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:47:07 GMT

In her recent article:

Revived Focus on Health Care, Revival of Tort “Reform” Rhetoric

Kia Franklin shines a light on the willingness of President Obama to shed his lofty campaign rhetoric about people and his mother's battles with health insurance and make a deal with the insurance industry to get any national health care plan passed. I am a liberal. I am a progressive. Like Kos I am not ashamed of it. And I terribly disappointed in President Obama. Is winning everything? Are collateral losses acceptable? Once the Fois Gras hits the table at the White House, the politics becomes everything. I had hoped that this guy could actually be The President. He has chosen to be the history of Harvard Law. Only Ralph Nader ever did that venerable institution proud. Here is what my President Obama i s going to do:

In the coming weeks and months Congress will be engaged in the difficult issue of how best to reform health care in America. I’m committed to building a transparent process where all views are welcome, but I’m also committed to ensuring that whatever plan we design upholds three basic principles: first, the rising costs of health care must be brought down; second, Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have or to choose a new doctor and health care plan if they want it; and third, all Americans must have quality, affordable, health care.

Ms. Franklin's article shines the light on an administration as hungry for success as any ever in the white house:

The Obama Administration’s renewed focus on meaningful health care reform—an issue that Obama has always been committed to—has sparked a fire of excitement and debate about what this means and who should be involved in the conversation.

This has especially been the case since Monday, when we learned that folks from the insurance industry will have an influential seat at the table in this discussion, news that brought much anxiety and dismay to patients’ rights advocates, who are left feeling like the loser in a game of musical chairs. On the flip side, the industry side seemed to be more than happy to fill up the circle with its reps, perhaps in hope that the agenda for tort “reforms” might finally be accomplished.

Kia will be following this issue but tells us up front that

Before I delve too deeply into it, though, I have to start by saying that the tort “reform” movement is really seizing the moment here to shove its agenda onto the table. If we’re going to talk about medical malpractice, we shouldn’t just be talking about liability (in fact, this is such a small aspect of what’s going on), we should be talking about standards of care, how to improve safety, and questions that impact the quality of a person’s experience and health outcomes in the system. The starting point should not be, how can we reduce the amount of money injured patients receive; it should be, how can we reduce the amount of injured patients out there and increase the number of patients who have positive, empowering experiences in the system?

That said, the issue of tort “reform” is here, it has a presence, and so it’s important that the right questions be asked and answered. Some useful questions to consider when engaging in the tort “reform” debate: 1) Who are the real and perceived beneficiaries and 2) what are the real and perceived economic benefits, of tort “reform” in the medical malpractice context? To flesh these questions out means asking things like: will tort “reform” benefit innocent patients and hard working doctors? Will it save doctors’ jobs and protect them from exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums? Will it protect patients from negligent medical care? Will it allow more patients to be covered for quality health care? Will it cut health care costs in a positive way? Or, will it simply transfer costs from those who can afford it but want to increase their profits, onto those who simply cannot afford it and merely want to live a healthy, harm-free life?

President Obama should realize that the public knows the facts:

Read the facts. Tort “reform” will not reduce costs in a meaningful way. The costs reduction it does achieve will be done at the expense of innocent people seeking to uphold their right not to receive negligent, sub-par medical care. Tort “reform” will not keep insurance companies from finding a way to bilk doctors, and it will not improve the quality of the health care we receive. In other words, so called medical tort “reform”, is not (reform, def.: the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory). Real health care reform should focus on patient safety through initiatives like improved technology and record keeping, not medical malpractice caps.

The best resource for President Obama and his team of inside the beltway henchmen to see what the public is going to know is for them to go to the top source for insurance: Americans for Insurance Reform, affiliated with the Center for Justice and Democracy. They just released 14 informative fact sheets about medical liability and health care. Read them here.

Barbara O’Brien, also known as Mahabarbara, has begun a truly insightful series of blog posts about the health care system and tort “reform” over at the Mesothelioma Law & Politics blog. She gets deep into the history of the tort “reform” movement, it’s place in the health care debate, who’s behind it, and what the impact of tort “reform” really is on the health care system. Seriously, just go and read them now. The third of her series of posts will be up soon.

Regarding costs, on Sunday Eric Turkewitz offered helpful insight about the complaint about premiums—namely, that the complaint is made out of context.

My focus on the sellout of patients rights and insurance abuse by President Obama can be seen in Tort Reform Reality: Obama May Throw Patients Under the Bus

I have also recently posted on the Myths about single payer from Public Citizen, Physicians for a National Health Program, part of the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care in:

Myths About Single Payer National Health Insurance

Often with Blogs in the groundswell the Comments add important insights as does Throckmorton to Kia Franklin's article:

Zeke Emanuel who is spearheading healthcare reform for the Obama Administration recently met with delegates from the Health Insurance industry and the AMA. This is the reported agreement meeting that was related in the press. In this meeting, Emanuel made it clear that the Obama Administration plans to decrease health care costs by limiting end of life care. That is to say, to limit life prolonging care for the aged and those with severe medical problems. This is based on the fact that the majority of healthcare costs occur in the last 6 months of life. By limiting care in this period, they hope to decrease costs. To do this, they want to mandate what they consider "futile care". Since what is "futile" is a matter of opinion and since there is always the chance that some patients would have been saved, the Obama Administration realized that there is huge tort liability in any action of this type. As a result, they have promised Federal tort reform where medical damages will be payed at the Medicare Rate for all medical bills and a cap of $250,000 on all other damages. Since the Administration expects that there will still be private insurance providers and since they want the private insurers to tow the line of the same Federally Mandated Limits of care, they have agreed that private insurance companies will have immunity from tort liability if they deny care in the same manner.

Posted by: throckmorton | May 13, 2009 08:52 PM

The fix is in. Obama has become what he campaigned against. Shame.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons