The doctor has admitted his error. Under regulations in this government program, the airman cannot sue for malpractice. The U.S. Air Force is now considering whether to discharge him on disability of $800 a month.
This is one of these really hard cases. On one hand, taxpayers are ultimately liable for this government doctor, and so loss of the right to sue has saved us all some much-needed cash. On the other hand, a young husband’s promising career in the military has been ruined, and his future with the Air Force is entirely up to the government.
As we debate health care reform on a national level, it is worth looking at medical malpractice issues.
On one hand, statistics show that only about 1 percent of patients suffer damages from medical malpractice, a quarter of them fatal. Only a few bad apples, just 5 percent of physicians, were responsible for 54 percent of the payouts.
According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, physicians in the U.S. paid a total of $6.4 billion in malpractice insurance premiums in 2000, and in 2001, some $4.5 billion was paid out to settle claims. Even in this era of trillions, that’s still a significant amount of change.
If you examine the major players of this drama about fault, you find a triangular firing squad. Insurance companies blame sloppy doctors and greedy attorneys. Doctors blame greedy attorneys and insurance companies, which, in their quest for investment cash, agree to insure incompetent doctors. Malpractice attorneys blame sloppy medical practitioners and greedy insurance companies.
In 1975, California acted to cap malpractice awards at $250,000 for non-economic loss, most often the amorphous “pain and suffering.”
Economic costs such as lost income, medical treatment and rehabilitation are not limited. This has provided some stability to California but has meant lower incentive for attorneys to take on medical malpractice cases.
In 2007, Kaiser Family Foundation reported 924 cases of malpractice payouts in this state, compared with New York’s 1,537 for the same period, even though New York state has only about half the population of our state.
Perhaps, we just have better doctors here.
Medical tort reform has been a hot issue for decades, pitting two powerful groups against each other — the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association.
Politicians are caught in the middle and have struggled to avoid alienating either group. During the most recent presidential campaign, President Obama mainly blamed the insurance companies.
According to his Web site, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also promote new models for addressing physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.”
It is clear the proposed health care plans favored by the administration continue to put the blame mostly on private insurance companies.
No one knows what will come out of the various health care reform bills circulating in Washington, D.C. Backroom deals are often the coin of the realm when crafting controversial legislation, and there are rumors that the AMA may have received some of what it wants in return for its endorsement of Obama’s efforts.
One might expect the ABA is keeping a close eye on any dealings with the power to demand its own concessions.
Right now in our private medical care and insurance programs, the doctors, lawyers and insurance companies are pushing interests that balance one another’s hegemony.
If the government does manage to pass significant health care reform with a public insurance program to compete with the private insurance companies — to, as Obama has stated, “keep them honest” — we might see little change in the malpractice dynamics at first.
If, however, the Republicans are right that the proposed plan will compete unfairly with insurance companies and force many out of business, then we might be looking at government as the sole insurer, and all of us might face walking in the prosthetic shoes of Airman Read.
• Pamela Case, a local freelance paralegal, is among a select group of local residents with columns in the Tracy Press.
Three % of med mal actually turns into a claim, and that small number of claims has crippled the system. After the mistake - what do we do? We enter a rube Goldberg machine that prides itself on injustice, inefficiency and expense. My career has been medmal since 1985.
Up to sixty % of all moneies spent on a case does not go to the injured party- surprised? defense attorneys, plaintiffs attorneys, contingency fees, court reporters. experts etc, survive nicely on the current system. Like most hypocricy, those that scream the loudest are the ones you should watch. Several senators come to mind!!
Here is how we fix it: Change the forum to binding arbitration and the total cost plummets 30%. The Doc gets a jury of his peers, the hollywood factor that amps up verdicts goes away, the injured party gets the money quickly, premiums come down, defensive medicine plummets, policies become affordable, the cost of healthcare drops, the courts get declogged, while the attorneys still make a nice living. I could go on !!
There is too much money to be made by the noninjured. Start over and stop blaming the trees for the forest fire. Meritorious claims should be compensated ,but I have settled too many claims where everybody makes alot of money other than the injured party. Eradication of med mal is a pipe dream. We can trim it some but the question is about a better way for taking care of the injured without financially crippling the system. - Jim OHare AIC AIS VP med mal claims PIC
Other big reasons you will not like the proposed health care bill is the enormous new expenditures that will require what Sen Pelosi daintily refers to as 'new revenue streams'. That is your taxes going to pay for the health care of people who pay ZERO taxes, which is currently approx 34% of all Americans.
And the health care bill does not address at all what the plan will cover and what it will not cover. If your employer told you at year end that your health benefits were changing and you had to pick a new plan, but gave no details on what the new plan covered, what would your reaction be? The Congress is being asked to OK a huge amount of spending and they have no idea what it will cover.
But the Congress and federal employees in Washington need not worry, they are exempt from the new plan, they get to keep their health care.
Contact McNerney, Pelosi and Boxer and tell them to reject this plan.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/21/obama_not_familiar_with_key_provision_in_health_care_bill.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99J23A02&show_article=1
WoodsideParkBob
“All current government paid patients (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health Service, Bureau of Prisons, etc.) except for active duty military can sue for malpractice.”
Yah, right! Guess that explains why we couldn’t sue the VA for my pa’s prostate surgery when th surgeon an his assistants left three surgical sponges inside him that dang near killed him until another Dr. discovered em an removed em.
Wouldn’t put too much stock in what th president has ta say about all this. I say this because of the info ya can read fer yerself at th above web sites, assumin TP doesn’t remove em.
Tort reform might be a good idea. But it won’t do much good if we allow the government to push all private practitioners outa the business with thair rules that apparently only a few know anythin about as this bill is rushed through the House an Senate so th Pres can sign it inta law without even knowin the provisions of th bill, as he testified with his own words.
An while all of yer attention is focused on this shell and pea game, is anyone watchin what’s goin on with the Climate Change bill that’s gonna hit the fan sometime in Sept?
Pea’s under the middle shell. Nope? How about th one on the right? Nope? It’s gotta be the on th left. Yep, thair it is, right whair no one was lookin. Get th picture?
Pam, thanks fer yer article. Some of th numbers were different on what medical pension th guy will probably get but close enuf ta make yer point.
Preserving your right to sue for malpractice is not a valid reason to oppose health care reform despite the fear mongering by opponents of reform.