Limiting Medical Malpractice Claims

[studentLBG]

Theoretically, the medical malpractice system is supposed to hold doctors accountable in hopes they will make fewer mistakes, help identify negligent care, and help patients that have been harmed by medical error and compensate them financially for the harm that has been dealt to them because of medical error. Unfortunately, our current system is working the way it was designed. Approximately 90% of cases do not go to court and a majority of the settlement money goes to lawyers, courts, and expert testimony on behalf of the defendant. “Here are some relatively recent sobering statistics:

• Sixty-three percent of medical malpractice claims filed were associated with medical errors; therefore, 37 percent were not associated with errors. However, of those, 28 percent still got compensation (at an average of $313,205).
• Of those medical malpractice claims associated with medical errors, 73 percent of them settled (with an average compensation $521,560).
• The majority of expenditures (54 percent) go toward litigation over these medical errors and compensation for them.” (Bose, 2017)

States that have limited medical malpractice claims have seen significant reductions in malpractice insurance premiums and suits. “A rationale in favor of this option is that the resulting lower cost of malpractice insurance would help increase the supply of some specialists in certain regions of the country. For example, some obstetricians, who could be deterred from practicing in places where the annual cost of malpractice insurance is particularly high (premiums can exceed $200,000 in some areas), might relocate or leave the practice of medicine altogether. Limits on malpractice claims also could curtail the provision of unnecessary or redundant services. Yet another rationale is that such limits could discourage some lawsuits in cases where negligence did not actually occur.” (Congressional Budget Office, 2016) Malpractice reforms were passed in Texas in 2003. Since then, “claims and lawsuits in this state have been cut in half. Liability carriers have slashed their rates, doctors have flocked to the state, access to care has improved and physician morale has soared”. (Roslund, 2014) Other examples of where limiting medical malpractice claims in comparing Minnesota and Florida. “The average malpractice premium in Minnesota is estimated at $8,500 while the average premium in Florida is estimated at $79,000! Why such an astronomical difference? Do Florida doctors make more mistakes than those in Minnesota? Of course not. In fact, Florida physicians are probably less risk tolerant and pressured to practice medicine more defensively. There are approximately 4,000 emergency physicians in Florida. If they were to convert their insurance to a Minnesota carrier, they would save $70,000 per doc for a total of $280 million! Where does this $280 million come from and where does it go? EPs in both states are paid approximately the same. However, Medicare spending is $6911 per capita in Minneapolis and $13,824 in Miami. Put another way, each year we taxpayers make a $280 million donation to Florida’s trial lawyers.” (Roslund, 2014) By limiting the amount of malpractice awards, physicians will be more likely to practice in all areas of the country instead of flocking to those with lower malpractice insurance premiums. This will universally provide a positive effect on the delivery and quality of care provided throughout healthcare systems.

References

Bose, M. S. (2017, November 29). The Case Against Our Current Malpractice System. Retrieved from www.huffpost.com: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-...malpractice-system_b_5a1f4595e4b0dff40be0362f

Congressional Budget Office. (2016). Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2017to 2026. Washington:

Roslund, M. G. (2014, July 21). The Medical Malpractice Rundown: A State-by-State Report Card. Retrieved from http://epmonthly.com: http://epmonthly.com/article/the-medical-malpractice-rundown-a-state-by-state-report-card/