Michigan Personal Injury Blog - obama

AAJ Debunks Myths About Medical Negligence

David Mittleman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:46:56 GMT

President Obama promised a floor debate on health care reform in the House, and now that promise is coming to fruition. The debate is sure to include the classic opponents of healthcare reform, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as other tort reform proponents such as the asbestos, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. However, one of the most problematic arguments used by these groups is that medical malpractice lawsuits are the basis for the rising cost of healthcare and that the answer is not healthcare reform. Instead, they argue that limiting “frivolous lawsuits” is the panacea to our country’s healthcare cost woes.

The American Association for Justice (AAJ), a trial lawyers group based Washington, D.C, recently released a 30-page report (pdf) outlining the pertinent arguments of the debate. Specifically, the five myths the AAJ outlines are:

Myth #1: There are too many frivolous lawsuits, and curbing the number of lawsuits would cut down the cost of healthcare.

The actual number of lawsuits filed per year is questionable. What most people don’t understand is that trial lawyers don’t have near the financial power that an insurance company does. Specifically, insurance companies can spend enormous, and seemingly endless, amounts of money to win a case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, on the other hand, are on very tight budgets and must question the validity of every case that might come their way. Wasting money attempting to prove a case that doesn’t have merit is nonsensical, so plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t scooping up every case possible, contrary to popular belief.

While the number of frivolous lawsuits is questionable, the number of medical negligence cases aren’t: in fact, according to the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 “To Err is Human” report, 98,000 people are killed in hospitals each year from preventable medical errors.

Furthermore, a Hearts Newspaper Group “Dead by Mistake” investigation into medical malpractice found that the number of patients affected was closer to 200,000, when hospital-acquired infections were taken into consideration.

Are all of these individuals affected by medical negligence flocking to file lawsuits? Apparently not: according to a Harvard study, only 1 in 8 people injured by medical negligence filed a malpractice claim.

Other myths included in the AAJ report include:

Myth #2:

Malpractice claims drive up the cost of healthcare

Myth #3:

Doctors are fleeing

Myth #4:

Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums

Myth #5:

Tort reform will lower insurance rates

For additional information on the myths surrounding healthcare reform and the costs of healthcare, see AAJ's "Debunking the Myths".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Tort Reform Revisited: Why It Isn't the Answer to All Our Healthcare Cost Woes

David Mittleman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:24:12 GMT

Yesterday I wrote about the curious case of McAllen, Texas and how putting caps on medical liability payouts wasn’t the magical cure for reducing the rising cost of healthcare. Nevertheless, doctors and Republicans seem to have a one track mind when it comes to this issue. For decades, these two groups have argued for tort reform, despite studies and real life case studies that show that capping jury awards in malpractice cases does nothing to lower health care costs.

Unfortunately, now President Obama wants to follow the same path. Deemed an “olive branch” to bring together Democrats and Republicans on this sensitive issue, the President recently directed the Health and Human Services Department to spend $25 million to help states and health care systems find alternative ways to resolve medical malpractice claims. Nevertheless, he has declined to put a national cap on malpractice awards, much to the chagrin of some doctors and Republican lawmakers.

Tort reform advocates like to argue that putting caps on malpractice awards will help decrease medical costs for doctors, which also means reduced costs for patients. Indeed, recent studies by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed that putting caps on medical malpractice awards would reduce doctors’ insurance liability payouts, which, in turn, would reduce medical fees for patients. However, the reduction in costs is extremely modest—in fact; national healthcare spending would go down by a meager .2 percent. Medical errors cost 44,000 people their lives each year: that’s more than the number that are killed by highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS annually. In light of those daunting statistics, it hardly seems worth the .2 percent savings in national healthcare spending to take away patients’ legal remedies for medical injuries that were caused by no fault of their own.

Michigan has some of the nation’s toughest caps on medical malpractice payouts: $410,800 for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. So patients aren’t getting a windfall payout when they do sue, despite what some tort reformers would like you to believe. Instead of always blaming the lawyer or the “sue-happy patient”, maybe it’s time to point our fingers at the malpractice insurance industry that charges astronomical amounts simply because they can. More importantly, let’s focus on improving patient safety to being with.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Health Care Bills Must Maintain Focus on Reducing Injury, Not Reducing Patients' Rights

David Mittleman — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:25:30 GMT

In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Obama hinted that he would consider approaching the issue of medical malpractice liability to show he is willing to compromise with conservatives. That this issue continues to dominate public opinion, even as experts such as physician and law professor William Sage from the University of Texas produce studies showing that only 1% of the nation's of the nation's $2.5 trillion health tab is directly attributable to the malpractice system, shows how distorted public opinion has become thanks to the conservative media machine.

President Obama's plan highlighted three major goals: (1) Put "patient safety first and work to reduce preventable injuries"; (2) promote better communication between doctors and patients and make sure patients are compensated "in a fair and timely manner for medical injuries"; and (3) reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. The American Association for Justice was quick to point out that if the focus remains on "reducing the number of injuries, fostering better communication, compensating patients quicker, and reducing doctors’ premiums", we're all going to benefit in the end.

Even as President Obama offers his $25 Million dollar Demonstration Project, he continues to cite the fact that malpractice premiums do not account for a large percentage of total medical costs. Nevertheless, despite overwhelming evidence that what will truly reduce health care costs in America is reducing the number of preventable medical errors (which cause between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths per year) and enhancing preventive medicine, this gesture moves us closer towards undermining the Constitution's 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Poll Finds Americans Support Healthcare Reform Despite Worries Over Cost

David Mittleman — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Amidst all of the supposed “grassroots” opposition to President Obama’s healthcare reform plans, a Bloomberg News poll recently found that 8 out of 10 Americans actually support the President’s goals to change the U.S. healthcare system. In fact, 8 out of 10 of those polled, support covering the uninsured, curbing costs, creating an insurance-purchasing exchange, and preventing insurers from dropping or refusing coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

The poll, conducted September 10-14, found that 48% of respondents favored Obama’s plan, while 42% oppose it. Moreover, respondents felt that Obama’s September 9^th speech helped debunk false rumors. In fact, 6 out of 10 respondents do not believe that Obama would set up “death panels” to decide who would receive care, or that federal money would be used to provide abortions. Similarly, respondents did not believe that Obama plans to cover illegal immigrants—despite what South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson might say.

However, what does seem to be the problem is the cost of healthcare reform. What most Americans are concerned about is the legislation contributing to the federal budget deficit. Nevertheless, the majority of those polled stated that employers should have to offer insurance, and that individuals should be required to have coverage. Most telling of Americans’ attitudes toward healthcare reform is that 6 out of 10 of those polled felt that the current healthcare system has problems that need to be fixed. Who’s to blame for most of the healthcare system’s problems? According to most polltakers, insurance companies are the biggest culprits, followed by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, 50% viewed health insurers unfavorably, while more than half blamed pharmaceutical companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

"Death Panel" Rumors Patently False, Fueled by Republican Talking Heads

David Mittleman — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Recently, a stubborn, yet false rumor has been spreading like wildfire thanks to Republican talking heads and other stalwarts, including former vice-president nominee Sarah Palin and veteran Iowa senator Charles E. Grassley. The rumors allege that Obama's healthcare proposals include government-sponsored “death panels”, which would decide on which terminally-ill patients, particularly the elderly, would be deemed worthy to live.

There is actually nothing in any of the legislation that would call for these so-called “death panels” that would stop medical treatment to the elderly or terminally ill as a cost-cutting measure. In actuality, a pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance families to have consultations with healthcare professionals on end of life care, such as whether to your loved one wants to authorize aggressive life saving interventions later in life, when nothing else would work to keep a loved one alive. Furthermore, the interventions would be completely voluntary and a similar proposal already passed in Congress last year without a hitch. Nevertheless, Palin and Grassley seem bent on twisting the actual legislative proposals to fuel fears that Obama has nothing more than a pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia agenda. Indeed, Palin coined the term “death panels” in recent days, while speaking at one of the several town hall meetings taking place around the country. Moreover, a Washington Times editorial recently compared Obama to German Nazis—comparing his proposed healthcare legislation to the Aktion T4 program, where “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition”.

Unfortunately, while the lies run rampant, they are very similar to those that helped defeat President Clinton’s healthcare reform proposals back in the 90s. Similarly, the rumors are akin to those spread during the presidential campaign that Obama was a Muslim and questioned his nationality. John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the healthcare proposals, has repeatedly deemed the “death panel” rumors false. While he expected opposition to some extent, he stated: “I guess what surprises me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected. It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the President.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Relatives Outraged to Learn Bodies of Deceased Loved Ones May Have Been Dug Up in Burial Site Scam

David Mittleman — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:40:00 GMT

Horrifically, 200 to 300 graves at the Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois were dug up in an illegal scheme to make more money. According to the Cook County Sheriff, four employees of Perpetua Holdings of Illinois Inc. were arrested after they allegedly dug up graves and moved bodies to a mass dumping site to make room for new grave sites. The perpetrators also apparently removed headstones and buried coffins on top of existing burial sites. All of these actions were part of an elaborate scheme to cash in on the re-sale of burial sites that were already being used.

At least six Chicago law firms are representing the relatives of the deceased. Some of the firms are attempting to obtain a restraining order to allow the families into the graveyard, which was cordoned off as a crime scene by local authorities. Aside from the temporary restraining orders, the lawsuits seek compensatory damages and potentially punitive damages. Furthermore, Capital Group of Richardson, Texas may also be named as an owner of the graveyard.

The cemetery holds the bodies of many prominent Americans such as the slain civil rights figure Emmett Till and blues and jazz singer Dinah Washington. Michelle Obama’s father was allegedly buried in the graveyard as well, but the White House has since debunked that rumor.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

We Need Insurance Reform Now

David Mittleman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:27:00 GMT

Insurance companies have been in the spotlight recently, particularly with President Obama’s proposals to reshape the health care industry. Millions of Americans are without health insurance, and access to quality care seems to be more and more elusive. As employees are losing their jobs, they are also losing employer-provided health benefits, assuming they had them to begin with. Even individuals with insurance are being pushed beyond the limits of their finances. I believe it is fair to say that America is in the middle of an insurance crisis.

Newspapers are replete with headlines describing some of the most flagrant abuses by insurance companies. In addition to denying benefits that should be paid, insurance companies have been accused of committing staggering amounts of fraud and waste. Despite this, insurance reform has yet to take hold.

Insurers steadfastly continue to oppose any attempt at insurance reform. Meanwhile, individual claimants continue to suffer as they wait for benefits that may never come. These people are truly victims of the insurance industry. Already injured or sick, they are forced to make do without much-needed services or to pay for them out of their own pockets. They can be forgiven for wondering what their premium payments have been used for if not to pay for the benefits they eventually seek.

Now is the time for insurance reform. You have an opportunity to take part in this process. Contact your Senators and Representative and tell them you want insurance companies to be held accountable for the benefits they have promised to provide.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Don't Believe the Hype that Affordable Health Care for Everyone is a Bad Idea

David Mittleman — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:13:04 GMT

Senator Shelby (R-Ala.) is apparently living in a world of his own: he currently stated on “Fox News Sunday” that Obama will “destroy the best health care system the world has ever known”. He then went on to state that once the government gets involved in “the details” you place private insurance companies at an unfair disadvantage—against the government, who has the “incentives” and “power“ to crush private enterprise. He ultimately resorted to fear mongering, warning Americans “[that] they better be careful what they want”—some of the same old tactics that have placed this country in the desperate economic situation it’s in now.

Perhaps Senator Shelby is unaware that the Census Bureau estimated that there were 46.6 million uninsured Americans in 2005. Surely that number hasn’t decreased in 4 years, given that most Americans couldn’t afford private health insurance prior to our nation’s economic collapse. Maybe Senator Shelby continues to argue against government-sponsored health coverage for all Americans because he doesn’t have to worry about not being able to afford private health care coverage. Instead, he has government issued health insurance, provided by the taxpayer dollar.

Senator Shelby pretends to have the well being of the American people in mind—except when it’s inconvenient. In fact, he was a strong advocate against the struggling big three automakers, and supported foreign automakers instead. Not surprisingly, Senator Shelby’s home state of Alabama has won three foreign assembly plants since the 1990s, including Honda, Mercedes Benz and Hyundai, as well as an engine plant from Toyota and numerous investments from foreign auto parts makers. Since his state is so heavily reliant on foreign automaker kickbacks, its no wonder Senator Shelby is on their side. Could it be that he also has private insurance companies in his back pocket too?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Obama's Pick for the High Court is justice for average citizens, not corporations

David Mittleman — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:12:02 GMT

Less than 48 hours after his announcement of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy of retiring Justice David Souter, it appears that her opponents have little to truly bicker about. Absent some unforeseen event, she will become the first Latina Supreme Court Justice in our nation's history. President Obama's selection will prove to be more than just a barrier breaking moment in history, it will demonstrate a victory for justice in America.

What's more important, however, is that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated time and again that she knows American values of hard work, fair play, free speech, and yes, even, love of baseball. Consider these stances taken by Sotomayor.

1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.

2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.

4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.

5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.

6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.

7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.

8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.

9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.

10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."

Sources for each of the 10 things:

1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=1

2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=2

3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).

4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=3

5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).

6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=4

7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=5

8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=6

9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=7

10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=8

10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-2269734-SqSXK.x&t=9

10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Obama Gives Hope to Americans Drowning in Debt

David Mittleman — Sat, 23 May 2009 13:04:21 GMT

There is light at the end of the tunnel for cash-strapped consumers. Congress passed and President Obama has now signed a long-awaited set of new provisions to prevent credit card companies from suddenly raising interest rates or raising interest rates on preexisting balances. The bill will take effect in nine months, and will force credit card companies to give consumers 45 days notice prior to changing interest rates. Additionally, the bill will require that interest rates remain the same on preexisting balances, unless a consumer falls 60 days or more behind in payments.

Under the Bush administration, where the financial sector reigned supreme, little had been done to aid financially struggling Americans prior to the new provisions. Employing the same old tactics, such as complicated legal terminology in contracts and sudden rate increases, has kept the financial sector well above the red. Simultaneously, even the most responsible Americans who pay their bills on time are unable to even make a dent in their credit card debt.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman