The Injury Board Commentary - Medical Malpractice - Most Commented

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:53:48 GMT

President Obama needs the support of all of us in regard to the efforts by the insurance industry to sneak tort reform into the health care bill before Congress. No back room deals with the insurance industry will be tolerated by the vast majority of Americans who are clamoring for real health care reform and no Shibai!

Tort reform has no place in health care reform. Taking away the rights of patients injured by negligent doctors and hospitals will do nothing to improve health care and study after study has shown that tort reform will not lower doctor's insurance costs. The biggest myth is the false claim that health care costs are driven up by defensive medicine _ doctors doing unnecessary medical tests to avoid frivolous lawsuits. When studies have been about those tests in states where tort reform has been passed, it turns out that the doctors and hospitals continue to do the tests. Why? Because they make money doing those tests. So leaving the 98,000 Americans who die each year due to negligent doctors and hospitals through preventable medical injuries without a remedy for their losses is un-American and just plain wrong.

You may be interested in reading the true facts about defensive medicine:

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice - By Wayne Parsons, June 24, 2009 3:00 PM

Debunking the Myth on Defensive Medicine - By Cecelia Prewett, American Association of Justice (AAJ)

Not surprisingly the Honolulu Star Bulletin has taken up this false call for tort reform recently. That is consistent with the major media outlets siding with the insurance industry and ignoring the facts about health care and the basic American constitutional principle that for for every wrong there should be a remedy.

For more information go to the site for People over Profits where real facts are published and myths debunked. The Center For Justice & Democracy (CJ&D) led by legendary consumer advocate Joanne Doroshow is also a fabulous source for the real facts on these myths that major news media like the editors of the Honolulu Star Bulletin perpetuate on behalf of their friends in Big Insurance.

We must all tell President Obama and Congress not to tamper with the rights of injured patients to appease a greedy insurance industry that is, in fact, primarily responsible for the health care crisis of 98,000 deaths each year, many uninsured patients and doctors being gouged for their legitimate billings by insurance adjusters. I support the statement of Anthony Tarricone, President of the American Association of Justice in his communication today on the subject:

Washington, DC—“Any changes to the malpractice system must focus on patient safety and preventable medical errors, not limiting patients’ legal rights.

“The goals outlined by the White House – such as reducing the number of injuries, fostering better communication, compensating patients quicker, and reducing doctors’ premiums – move the debate in the right direction.

“However, 46 states have already enacted tort reform and health care costs continue to hurt the pocketbooks of American families. Because of these tort reforms, patients injured through no fault of their own are often unable to seek justice.

“It is critical that these demonstration projects preserve Americans’ 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury. The details matter significantly, but any efforts to limit patients’ rights are not acceptable. Promoting greater patient safety and reducing preventable medical errors are tenets doctors, attorneys, hospitals, and all Americans can support.”
### As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Is Texas Protecting Dangerous Doctors?

Mark Bello — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:04:01 GMT

Governor Rick Perry routinely overstates the success of tort reform in Texas. Contrary to what he touts, there has been a very small increase in practicing doctors in the state and the bulk of the influx was in larger cities where health care was already abundant.

Texas has 254 counties; only 106 have obstetrician/gynecologist — just six more than in 2003. For example, Presidio County’s one and only practicing physician, one doctor for 8,000 residents. Because the physician does not deliver babies or treat emergencies, many women move to another part of the state while pregnant. In Pecos, about four-hours north of Presidio, a California woman became ill while traveling through the area. By the time they reached the closest hospital nearly 200 miles away, the woman died in the car. These are the kind of underserved regions that Perry said would benefit from tort reform. Bottom line is that tort reform did not increase rural health care in Texas.

Now here’s the other twist. It is no secret among doctors that if you’ve been disciplined in other states for repeated accusations of negligence, Texas is the place to move your practice. Why? The Texas Medical Board (TMB) is not required to disclose cases of medical malpractice when a doctor moves from another state. In fact, they are not required to even look into cases. You read that correctly, the Texas Medical Board does not check to see if a doctor moving from another state has a track record of seriously injuring or killing patients. The responsibility to disclose malpractice cases rests solely on the doctor. If the doctor does not report his/her own medical negligence, patients are left in the dark.

That was the case with Dr. Stefan Konasiewicz (Dr. K), a brain surgeon who couldn't work in Minnesota so he went to Texas where his negligence would be protected by the Texas tort reform. Thanks to Governor Perry, if you are injured, or worse, it is nearly impossible to seek justice because the state tort reform severely reduces a doctor’s accountability for negligence. Feel safe now?

Sadly, Texas has become a safe haven for dangerous doctors. Governor Perry and his supporters have made it clear that protecting health care providers is more important than protecting patients; that “making more money" has replaced "do no harm” for these corporations. Doctors are allowed to erase previous harm done in another state then avoid accountability for harm caused in the future. Bad doctors are attracted to places that allow them to injure people and not be held accountable. Telling doctors to come to Texas and no matter what they do to their patients they will keep their license and continue to make obscene profits. Just remember that these apply to every case, even the most serious malpractice cases.

If Rick Perry and his supporters were hoping tort reform would attract more doctors to the state, they should have thought about the quality (rather than quantity) of the doctors they would be attracting. If you were a doctor with a history of committing malpractice, wouldn’t you move to Texas?

Only you, the people, can stop this nonsense. Don’t be another victim of a bad doctor’s negligence; don’t be a victim of senseless, anti-citizen, tort reform, politics and corporate greed.

Contact your local, state and federal elected representatives; find out where they stand on these important issues. If they stand with the corporations and the tort reformers, tell them they can’t have your vote. Anytime a politician says “tort reform”, they are really saying “deregulation” of the medical profession. Is that what you want? Tell them to speak up for the American taxpayer not their corporate cronies. If they refuse, vote for the “other guy”. You have rights; make them be heard.

Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life funding is needed during litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Bello

If H.R. 5 is So Good : Why are They Making Up Their Arguments?

Mike Bryant — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:02:14 GMT

There is a battle going on in Washington. It is pitting the constitutional rights of the consumer against big insurance and doctor groups that don't want those that hurt people to be liable. They want limits that do nothing but protect the wrongdoers. Unfortunately, they are filling the debate with faulty information. It is very important that every consumer understand the facts:

AMA Myth: 64% of medical liability claims in 2009 were dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed.

FACT: “Claims” are not lawsuits; and medical malpractice lawsuits are dropping dramatically.

A “claim” is defined as “A demand to the insurer by, or on behalf of, the insured person for the payment of benefits under a policy.”[i] Conversely, a lawsuit is an action before a court to recover damages for a harm suffered. Recognizing that important difference, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits dropped 15 percent between 1999 and 2008.[ii] Indeed, medical malpractice cases are only a small portion of a state’s civil caseload. According to the NCSC, “Despite their continued notoriety, rarely does a medical malpractice caseload exceed a few hundred cases in any one state in one year.”[iii]

The threat of the litigation is sometimes the only way to uncover what transpired when a medical error occurs. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 70 percent of patients who experience medical errors are not told by their doctors.[iv] By filing a “claim” with the physician’s insurer, patients learn quickly what happened when an error occurs. In fact, very few patients who experience a preventable medical error ever sue.

Further, the Institute of Medicine, in its seminal study, found that 98,000 people die every from preventable medical errors.[v] Recent research shows that this may be a low estimate. A 2011 Institute for Healthcare Improvement study estimates that one in three patients who are admitted to the hospital will experience a medical error.[vi]

· Myth: 88% of tried medical liability claims in 2009 were won by the physician.

FACT: Only 3% of people harmed by a doctor’s negligence ever file a lawsuit, and most negligence claims are meritorious, with 97 percent of claims involving medical injury and 80 percent involving physical injuries resulting in major disability or death.[vii]

First, because preventable medical errors are so common, and negligence is often times clear-cut, many claims are settled by an insurance company, without having to go before a judge or jury (also referred to as “tried” by the AMA). In fact, Harvard researchers concluded that “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown” and that the reverse—nonpayment of claims where error was involved—was a bigger problem. Other health leaders agree, “[T]he major problem out there is medical errors that are not compensated, rather than frivolous claims that are compensated.”[viii]

· Myth: Many physicians pay $150,000 every year for medical liability insurance.

FACT: Nothing on H.R. 5, including caps on damages, will lower insurance premiums.

An examination of malpractice premiums in states with caps shows there is no correlation between malpractice payouts and physician malpractice premiums. In fact, insurance premiums for doctors are lower in states without caps on damages.[ix] As well, the average malpractice premium has been dropping since 2006.[x]

· Myth: CBO estimates that the federal deficit will reduce by $54 billion over a 10-year period if medical liability reform is enacted.

FACT: Enacting H.R. 5 will only cause preventable medical errors to rise, increasing the cost of healthcare and increasing the burden on taxpayer-funded programs.

CBO noted that if medical liability reforms are enacted, the U.S. mortality may increase by 0.2%, killing an additional 48,250 Americans,[xi] and, even with CBO’s most generous estimate, medical malpractice reform will achieve only a 0.5% reduction in health costs. That’s one half of one penny of every dollar spent on healthcare.

The best way to reduce malpractice costs is to reduce medical malpractice. The IOM estimates that preventable medical errors cost the medical system an extra $290 billion over 10 years. Further, if patients cannot recover from wrongdoers, they will have to rely on taxpayer programs such, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Disability Insurance to cover their costs.

[i] According to the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA)

[ii] Examining the Work of State Courts: An Analysis of 2008 State Court Caseloads, National Center for State Courts 2010.

[iii] Id.

[iv] National Survey on Consumers' Experiences With Patient Safety and Quality Information, Kaiser Family

Foundation, November 17, 2004.

[v] Institute of Medicine released To Err Is Human (Nov. 1999)

[vi] David C. Classen, Roger Resar, Frances Griffin, Frank Federico, Terri Frankel, Nancy Kimmel, John C. Whittington, Allan Frankel, Andrew Segar and Brent C. James, ‘Global Trigger Tool’ Shows That Adverse Events in Hospitals May Be Ten Times Greater Than Previously Measured, Health Affairs, April 2011.

[vii] David M. Studdert, Michelle M. Mello, Atul A. Gawande, Tejal K. Ghandi, Allen Kachalia, Catherine

Yoon, Ann Louise Puopolo, Troyen A. Brennan, Claims, Errors and Compensation Payments in Medical

Malpractice Litigation, New England Journal of Medicine, 354;19, May 11, 2006.

[viii] Amanda Gardner, Frivolous Claims Make Up Small Share of Malpractice Suits, HealthDay, May 10,

2006.

[ix] Medical Liability Monitor (October 2010).

[x] Id. (various editions)

[xi] [xi] CBO Letter to Senator Hatch Regarding Analysis of the Effects of Proposals to Limit Costs Related to Medical Malpractice, page 5 (October 9, 2009) (citing “Lakdawalla and Seabury (2009) found that a 10 percent reduction in costs related to medical malpractice liability would increase the nation’s overall mortality rate by 0.2 percent.”).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Health Care Bill: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

Mike Ferrara — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:58:46 GMT

Opponents of the health care bill that was signed into law today by President Obama are already arguing that it’s not constitutional. Many people are asking where the US Constitution gives Congress the right to force people to buy a product.

The answers are these:

1. Under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Congress can mandate individuals to take a particular action as long as it affects interstate commerce. Interstate commerce encompasses all forms of communication and transportation and all movements of people and things across state lines. Without question, health care and health coverage are issues that affect interstate commerce; therefore, Congress can regulate them.

2. The Constitution grants Congress the right to tax Americans. If Congress decides to that everyone who does X or who fails to do Y owes a tax of $750, then those who do X and those who don’t do Y legally owe that tax. Notably, the individual mandate to buy health insurance, which says that anyone who doesn’t purchase coverage will have to pay a penalty, has been inserted into the tax code.

Whether or not people agree with the health care bill, opposing it on legal grounds is probably not the best use of their time and energy. Instead, we can try to support the immediate improvements the country will see this year, including an end to exclusion for pre-existing conditions, to lifetime caps on payments, and to dropped coverage for becoming sick.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Exposing the Perils of Texas Tort Reform

Mark Bello — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:06:32 GMT

According to Bob Moss, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, two serious violations, one resulting in death, triggered an inspection of Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas. The violations related to infection control and emergency care issues putting Parkside in “immediate jeopardy” status, “the most severe finding in a hospital”, said Moss. If Parkland does not provide acceptable correction plans by August 20, 2011 and complete those plans by August 24, 2011, it will be unable to participate in the Medicare program.

If that doesn’t jolt Texans into understanding what Governor Rick Perry is doing to the state consider this:

Texas neurosurgeon, Stefan Konasiewicz is on trial in Minnesota stemming from a medical malpractice and negligence lawsuit. Konasiewicz has left a trail of medical incompetence in Minnesota that has resulted in nine medical malpractice lawsuits, some involving patient deaths, as well as a public reprimand by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. Rather than face the music in Minnesota, Konasiewicz fled to Texas where lax oversight and an unjustly reformed legal system allowed him to practice medicine.

How does this happen? The Texas Medical Board (TMB) is not required to disclose cases of medical malpractice when a doctor moves from another state. In fact, they are not required to look into cases. You read that correctly, the Texas Medical Board does not check to see if a doctor moving from another state has a track record of seriously injuring or killing patients. The responsibility to disclose malpractice cases rests solely on the doctor. If the doctor does not report his/her own medical negligence, patients are left in the dark. And, it gets better. Thanks to Governor Perry, if you are injured, or worse, it is nearly impossible to seek justice because the state tort reform severely reduces a doctor’s accountability for negligence. Feel safe now?

According to the TMB, all state medical boards have full access to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), which lists malpractice cases and disciplinary actions taken against doctors, but because the NPDB charges for queries it is rarely, if ever done. Why? Because it would cost the state an estimated $160,000 a year to check on every doctor licensed in the state. There you have it; in Texas, your life is not worth $160,000.

Sadly, Texas has become a safe haven for dangerous doctors. They can erase previous harm done in another state, then avoid accountability for harm caused in the future. If you were a doctor with a history of committing malpractice, wouldn’t you move to Texas? Unfortunately for Texas, until anti-justice tort reformers are legislatively reversed these stories won't stop.

Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide legal finance cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life litigation funding is needed by plaintiffs involved in pending, personal injury litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association as well as their ABA Advisory Committee, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Bello

Damage Caps in Medical Malpractice Cases: Unconstitutional?

Mark Bello — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:33:26 GMT

The battle lines are being drawn in California over the issue of caps on Medical Malpractice recoveries. The Consumer Attorneys of California may be teaming up with Robert Peck, the Washington D.C. attorney who has been successful fighting caps on constitutional grounds in various states, to challenge MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975). KCRA 3 in California reports that a recent challenge was denied in the state court of appeals, but may be on its way to the California Supreme Court.

Attorneys are well aware of these laws that restrict an injured or disabled person's access to justice. I am not certain the public is aware of the outrageous results made possible by these justice-restricting laws. That is why I have been actively blogging about these issues at this location and many others. Without these restrictive laws, if you or your loved is maimed or killed by a medical mistake, there are no limits to how much money you can recover; you submit your case and damages to a jury and the jury decides how much your loss is worth. Components of recovery are usually medical expenses and other out of pocket expenses (in death cases, for instance, these would include burial expenses), lost wages, and the intangible, "pain and suffering". It is pain and suffering awards (and damages that punish outrageous conduct, called "punitive damages") that the pro-insurance company caps are designed to limit. Pain and suffering and/or punitive damage awards can be millions of dollars. In California and other states with these caps, the pain and suffering recovery is limited to $250,000, a cap that was established over 30 years ago.

It doesn't matter to the pro-insurance groups (some of your own legislators are part of this group-remember that next time you step into the voting booth) that, sometimes, the circumstances of a catastrophic injury or death require an award of millions for the injured person's sustenance. The pro-insurance, anti-consumer guys just don't want to pay it. They would rather the insurance companies hold onto it as "profit" and we all know that insurance companies make billions in "profits". They would rather you pay for it in public assistance. That's correct, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; without being appropriately compensated by the insurance company and the medical facility that took on the risk and received compensation for it, who do you think is going to support the injured, disabled and survivors of those killed?

The KCRA piece features the case of Stanley Stinnett who died as the result of a "series of medical mistakes" in a California hospital. After his widow settled with the hospital, the case went to trial against the doctor and the jury found in her favor, to the tune of $1.4 million in medical expenses and wages, and $6 million for pain and suffering. Under current law, she'll never see the $6 million; her recovery is capped at $250,000, $5.75 million less than the jury awarded.

There is certainly an argument to be made that restrictive laws like MICRA result in lower insurance premiums for doctors. The argument suggests that health care is, thus, more affordable. The fear is that "good doctors" would leave the state. But, punishing bad doctors with higher rates and rewarding good ones with lower rates would accomplish the same thing, as would a concerted effort by the medical community to improve transparency and reporting and to limit careless medical mistakes. Why punish the victim/patient? As Chris Dolan, an attorney/member of the Consumer Attorneys of California says:

"It (capping pain and suffering at $250,000) was just a terrible thing to do to people who've been harmed and a great thing to do to the insurance companies' bottom line,"

This is a question of conscience; it is a question of justice; it is a question of fairness. The caps argument reminds me of the Ronald Reagan "trickle down economics" theory that George Bush senior once called "voodoo economics". The suggestion that, somehow, the insurance company profits made on the backs of the injured, maimed, disabled and deceased will "trickle down" into the pockets of consumers and doctors is ludicrous. It is also grossly unfair to the one of the weakest segments of our society. The threat of a large medical malpractice award is a strong deterrant against bad doctors and keeps us safer. If there are limited or no consequences for bad behavior, bad behavior will continue. It is really that simple.

Lawsuit Financial provides medical malpractice lawsuit funding. It is one of a very select group of legal finance companies that has the expertise to underwrite and fund medical malpractice cases. Cap or no cap, we fund cases against their prospective case value; thus, arguing for the abolishment of caps does not have any significant, direct, benefit to our company. However, Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice, pro-consumer company. As such, we will continue to stand up for justice, in as many forums as possible. Please, show your strong support for the abolishment of caps or limits on recoveries in medical malpractice cases and/or other personal injury cases. Contact your elected officials, find out where they stand on these issues, and let them know that you will not vote for someone who supports these types of injustices.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Bello

Insurance Companies Fighting to Survive Frivolous-Lawsuit Onslaught

William Eadie — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 05:42:00 GMT

Health insurance companies, battling the overwhelming costs of frivolous lawsuits and jackpot justice that are putting honest doctors out of business and risking the lives of Americans every day, are struggling to survive in this down economy, many shuttering their doors as they fold up, one-by-one.

Oh, wait, health insurance companies collectively made a whopping $9.3 billion in profits in 2010. And that was just for the first nine months! Profits were up 41% over the same period in 2009. Chuck Smith Dewey reported this astonishing figure back when Democrat Pete Stark (D-Calif.) was demanding that the companies lower their premiums. Instead, the health insurance lobby spent millions to help implement malpractice entitlements for bad doctors, so that they could eke out just a little bit more money. They also made sure Democrats didn't retain control of congress.

But, some careful readers are thinking, “that’s personal health insurance, not malpractice insurance! The malpractice insurers are the ones on the ropes, right?” Wrong again: “medical malpractice insurance companies’ average profits are higher than those of 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.” Seriously, re-read that last sentence.

How do they do it? By pitting doctors against patients (or, more particularly, doctors against their patients’ lawyers). For decades, the insurance company has been telling doctors that greedy plaintiff’s lawyers are filing frivolous lawsuits, and this was the reason their insurance rates were shooting up. But that simply doesn’t make sense: why raise doctor’s premiums when making lots of money? The same is true for how they justify raising individual health insurance rates. I’ve written about the misleading Oklahoma tort “reform,” and now New York malpractice entitlements may become law. Who does this help? Nobody, except maybe insurance companies.

Most people injured by malpractice don’t even sue. And those that do, only account for 1-2% of healthcare costs. Lawyers and doctors both want the same thing: safe and healthy patients. And bad doctors—there are a few, but they certainly aren’t the norm—hurt not just their patients, but all the good doctors, too. We should be on the same side.

How do we improve this? By providing better care, to reduce malpractice. It worked in New York, where simple care improvements reduced the costs of malpractice litigation by 99%. Yes, 99%. And then there’s the checklist solution, that did for some hospitals what checklists did for the aviation industry: radically reduced unnecessary human error, saving lives.

I’m sure some insurance company executives want to save lives, and would consider encouraging doctors to implement these types of reforms to help their already-bulging bottom line. But the proof is in the pudding: the largest insurance companies had six lobbyists for every legislator, sent to kill any meaningful reform efforts. They spent millions to do it! And most injured patients have just one representative: a plaintiff’s attorney. They don’t want a fair fight, they want no fight.

What do you think? Let me know by posting a comment below!

Previous Malpractice Entitlements Articles:

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by William Eadie

Midwives in Virginia: A Bad Idea

Dan Frith — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:57:29 GMT

Virginia is seeing an explosion in the number of midwives....and this is a bad trend!

I see many complicated deliveries where a fetus becomes entangled in the umbilical cord or caught in the birth canal due to the large size of the fetus or the smallness of the mother's pelvis. Both of these situations are medical emergencies and require the immediate attention of well-trained obstetrician or maternal-fetal specialist in a hospital setting. These life or death situations do not, in my opinion, call for delivery by a midwife in the patient's home...where there is often inadequate time to transfer a patient to the hospital after a delivery becomes complicated.

Is the increase due to lack of health insurance? Maybe. Is the increase due to outrageous hospital and physician bills for deliveries? Probably. Is the American system for the provision of health care the best in the world? Absolutely not!

I just reviewed the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives (NACPM) website which states as follows about how the state of Virginia is approaching the issue of midwives, "Midwives, consumers and supporters in the legislature had the amazing foresight to include an explicit reference to the NACPM Standards of Practice in the legislation to license CPMs in Virginia." The NACPM website goes on to state that Virginia did a good thing by making specific reference to NACPM standards, because otherwise the Virginia Board of Medicine would not know what standards are applicable.

What a bunch of hooey! Want to know what the NACPM's first identified "Philosophy and Priciples of Practice is? How about, "NACPM members respect the mystery, sanctity and potential for growth inherent in the experience of pregnancy and birth."

My Take: Virginians deserve better medical care...it's not a mystery people....its medicine!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Dan Frith

Texas Tort Reform is NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:24:15 GMT

Tort reformers like to talk a lot about how the threat of malpractice suits raises health care costs by forcing doctors to practice “defensive medicine”—the ordering of unnecessary tests, procedures, and prescriptions in an attempt to protect themselves against a possible negligence lawsuit.

In a 2008 AMA survey, they remind us, a majority of the doctors who responded admitted to practicing defensive medicine—a number that translates, the AMA calculated, to $1.4 billion more spent annually on health care. If our doctors weren’t threatened into doing this, we’d all save loads of money and our national health crisis would be over.

Are the tort reformers right? Well, let’s look at Texas. Several years ago, the state passed a stringent medical malpractice law that capped awards for pain and suffering at $250,000, and brought the number of malpractice lawsuits down dramatically.

So the cost of health care in Texas must also be down, you suppose, since doctors don’t face the same malpractice threats as the rest of the country. Eh, No. In fact, Texas is home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country to receive health care: McAllen, Harlingen and Corpus Christi. In each of these cities, every Medicare patient is costing the country more than $10,000 a year (a couple thousand more than the national average).

So if defensive medicine against the threat of malpractice suits isn’t driving up costs, what is?

Harvard Medical School surgeon Atul Gawande got a candid answer to this question from a general surgeon in McAllen, Texas:

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are [BS]. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ” –Atul Gawande, The NewYorker

While tort reform like Texas' won't improve the cost of our health care, changing our charge-per-service structure just might.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Texas medical injuries mount as malpractice laws protect negligent doctors and hospitals.

Wayne Parsons — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:50:11 GMT

Today I report the sad saga of Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.

As reported by Jamie Stengle of the Associated Press in Forbes, Feds: Parkland conditions a 'threat' to patients a Texas hospital has now made the news when federal government agency The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent a letter to Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas pointing such serious threats to patient safety that unless immediate corrective action was taken, Parkland would be taken out of the Medicare system by September 2nd.

After a patient died in February the federal agency became concerned about safety and a recent two week inspection by the feds confirmed that Parkland must be placed on "immediate jeopardy" status, the worst finding for a hospital. The areas of immediate concern included infection control.

The Dallas Morning News has reported that George Cornell, a 49-year-old schizophrenic with a heart condition, died after being placed in restrained. He was not monitored by nursing staff and the hospital employees who restrained him lacked training according to the news story.

A number of stories recently have shown the true effects of Texas tort reform in the area of medical malpractice.

Exposing the Perils of Texas Tort Reform, August 11, 2011, By Mark Bello

Does Texas medical malpractice "reform" attract bad doctors?, By Wayne Parsons

Texas Law Capping Medical Malpractice Awards Hasn't Cut Health Care Costs, July 27, 2011, By Andrew Cochran

Tort Reform and the Risky Perils of Texas Hospitals, August 11, 2011

The latter article is from The Center For Justice & Democracy (CJ&D) and their website on tort law, called The Pop Tort. The head of CJ&D is Joanne Doroshow a fearless advocate for safety and prevention and now a movie star after her role in the new movie sensation HOT COFFEE. The CJ&D story on Texas Hospitals asks the question of when will the public wake up to the perils of tort reform:

Maybe this will finally jolt people into understanding what happens when a state severely reduces a hospital’s accountability for negligence.

Looking at Parkland's situation we know that 40 percent of Parkland's funding comes from taxpayers, 16 percent from Medicare and 32 percent from Medicaid. The waste of taxpayer money only increases when treatment leads to injury or death thus costing more taxpayer money. Tort reform will continue to escalate spending on health. The only benefit of Texas medical malpractice reform is to reduce accountability for avoidable medical errors. There are 98,000 deaths each year due to avoidable medical errors and Texas is doing its part to keep those grim statistics at current or higher levels. Parkland is regional center for burns and trauma, and the teaching hospital for the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Patients should be able to hold doctors and hospitals fully accountable when avoidable medical errors cause injuries or deaths. Taxpayers should insist that the wrongdoers pay, not the taxpayers. Texas tort reform should be repealed. As a medical malpractice attorney in Hawaii, I hope to never see these laws come to the Islands. A good place to start is for all of the legislators in every state to see the movie HOT COFFEE!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons