DMI Blog

Kia Franklin

Health Care and Tort Reform in Election ‘08

The running list of substantive topics that have not been adequately covered during this election period continues to grow, and alongside this list the American public grows tired of mainstream media attention to Clinton’s feminine tears, Obama’s blackness, Edwards’ evil profession (representing people victimized by someone else’s neglect is such a sinister calling, they’d like us to think), etc., blah, blah. Wanting to do more than add “access to justice” to the growing list of untouched yet important topics that are overshadowed by the media madness, last week we launched a discussion about how the candidates can improve the legal system so that it works for regular Americans and not just corporations (here).

But it's not exactly that the candidates aren't talking about where they stand on issues affecting Americans' access to the courts; it's that the way they talk about it reveals that progressives aren't leading this discussion or enriching it with our values. Let's use as a case in point the candidates’ views about health care and patients’ rights. Healthcare in the headlines this week looks like this:

UI Study finds doctors fail to report errors
Man says NY hospital forced rectal exam
Quaid's recall twins' drug overdose
Should I Sue My Doctor?

So, clearly, for regular American people, covered and not covered by health insurance plans, it would be great to hear what the candidates have to say about improving the health care system so that patients can rightfully feel safe and secure.

According to our report:

The 1.5 million medication errors that occur every year add $3.5 billion in medical costs to the medical system, and between $17 billion and $29 billion per year in total costs to society—including medical expenses, lost income, lost household productivity, and physical disability.(4) This is too costly to the economy, to Americans’ health and well-being, and to the public’s confidence in our health care system.

Yet instead of focusing on restoring this confidence, and despite evidence that malpractice lawsuits are at best weakly linked to malpractice insurance rates, the debate among the candidates is focused on whether they support tort "reform" measures that reduce an injured person's right to sue a negligent doctor. Call me crazy, but I don't find much comfort in knowing that if I walk in for a routine procedure and am wheeled out with severe injuries that could have been prevented, or if I feel I have been assaulted or otherwise harmed during medical treatment, I won't be able to pursue justice on my own behalf.

Additionally, this question of a candidate's support for tort "reform" is grounded in the (now oft-debunked) assumption that such "reforms" will actually improve our healthcare system rather than further weaken what few protections we have.

Instead of asking the candidates whether they support tort "reform," we'd be better off asking how they will improve our experiences as patients in the health care system. Will they address the safety concern, or will they just take away the only safety net we do have--the civil justice system--after we're injured?

Progressives need to start demanding that the candidates move beyond their talking points about trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits and onto factual information and practical policies to improve our health care system and our experiences in it as patients. Progressives inside and outside of the medical community must get informed about the real link between a strong civil justice system and patients' satisfaction with the health care system.

Follow this link for an article that, though heavy in tort "reform" rhetoric, does provide a helpful layout of the candidates' positions. Then go read Election '08: A Pro Civil Justice Presidential Platform to see why you should think again if you think a candidate who supports tort "reform" has your health and well-being in mind.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:05 AM, Jan 17, 2008 in Civil Justice | Election 2008 | Health Care
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (7)


Comments

the link to the "Pro Civil Justice Presidential Platform" is one that everyone should follow if they want to get an understanding of what is at stake in this election, especially those who want to preserve access to the civil justice system for people injured by the healthcare system. The media does not want to rid itself of the fantasy that there is some harm to the medical system when people seek to make the system account for its own mistakes. Until people begin to take note of the fact that insurance companies run the healthcare system, and they do not want what is best for the patients, we will not get the type of reforms that we need. Michael Townes Watson
www.StopMedicalError.com

Posted by: Michael Townes Watson | January 17, 2008 02:04 PM

To Kia Franklin,

Please answer this reality check, because I don't think you understand what it meams to be a doctor in this country. I respect the fact that we need to improve decreasing medical errors. We also need to decrease the amount of medical costs for taking care of drunk driving victims, domestic abuse, teenage car accidents, wasted water, etc., all are examples of human mistakes. How do you tell a doctor who wants to set up shop in your city that in order to take care of patients, you have to pay 130,000 dollars in cash or 12,000 dollars per month to self insure yourself. Lets just say you are that doctor, think about it, how would you pay for this? I hope you're not counting on seeing more patients to make up the costs because you'd have to see 60/day for 365 days just to pay the malpractice premium, no salary.

Posted by: Reality-Check | February 26, 2008 02:17 PM

Dr. RC, you get right to the heart of the matter--why are doctors being overcharged for insurance? The answer will probably surprise you: hard working doctors have to shave down time with their patients, take pay cuts, and work longer hours just to pay insurance premiums because the insurance industry has free reign over price setting and puts profits over fairness to doctors and patients.

Because the industry is under-regulated it has been wildly successful at blaming price hikes on lawsuits, malpractice victims, and trial lawyers. Insurance companies are rarely ever challenged to open their books and show what's really causing the price increases, but limits on lawsuit awards have NO IMPACT on insurance rates. When pressed, insurance industry reps even admit this. This lie that is told to the public is just one facet of the pro-corporate bias infecting the way we think about social problems.

Progressives have to resist this divisive tactic (picture Claire and Cliff Huxtable bopping an insurance industry exec on the head in one of Cliff's wacky dreams and you'll get the point.)

Harvey Rosenfield did something about this in California and it was very successful in reducing costs and exposing the real cause of excessive insurance premiums: www.drummajorinstitute.org/transcripts/Transcript_Rosenfield_rev.pdf

Also, check out: Jay Angoff, “Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,” (Center for Justice and Democracy 2005) and Mythbuster: “Caps” Do Not Cause Insurance Rates to Drop (Center for Justice and Democracy)

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Kia | February 26, 2008 06:34 PM

According to a recent Harvard Analysis (you can find the report on msnbc website) 40% of all malpractice lawsuits are totally groundless yet 15% of those are settled anyway. Let's see 7-10 years of training, average debt of $140,000 dollars out of school; average physician salary $146,000 -declining 7% over last 8 years with purposed medicare cuts to reduce physician fees another 20%; malpractice premiums average $55,000/year (much higher in some specialties-my O.B. literally can not afford to work part-time because then she couldn't pay her malpractice)increasing public hostility toward the profession; Pressures from HMO's, hospitals, and the government...................I think I'll recommend law school to my kids.

Posted by: Lori | September 18, 2008 01:27 PM

Kia, if you're going to crowd cyberspace with palaver, than at least lay off the Kool aid and be circumspect. Protection from tort challenge increases the cost of every service by 11%. Product liability costs inflate the cost of all medical materials by another 15%. Why? There are far too many attorneys, and when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail! I have 18 years of education as an orthopaedic surgeon, and I am paid 31 cents on the dollar for expert and compassionate care. You expect to get treatment, but do you check to see if your doctor was paid? No. We are the only group of professionals that is expected to deliver a service with NO guarantee of payment. Do you do that? None of our brightest kids are going into medicine the way they used to, because a smart kid realizes that the odds are against him. I sincerely hope you have to wait in line hours for your next service, only to see an MD you can not understand and who has less traing than most American, noble physicians. You will get the kind of care that you deserve. Your physician and your priest may be the only friends you have, not your attorney.

Posted by: DrTbone | December 27, 2008 05:23 PM

By the way, Kia. You mention the 1.5 million medication errrors made annually. What % is this? You don't mention that. In 1,000,000,000,000 medication orders annually, 1.5 mil is the lowest errror rate in ANY industry, putting 6 sigma to shame. Put the Kool aid back in the refirerator!!!

Posted by: DrTbone | December 27, 2008 05:57 PM

DrTbone-Thank you for such kind, warm wishes during this holiday season. I am glad you, personal attacks and all, are not representative of your noble profession. I respect doctors, and for that reason think it's important to point out how they're being duped. For some factual data on lawsuits and healthcare costs visit tortdeform.com. Doctors, and much of the general public, are being lied to about why their premiums are so high. Increasing patient safety and securing mechanisms to protect those who've been harmed by medical malpractice would improve the situation. Capping damages does nothing but deny victims access to justice and enrich the insurance companies by keeping their role in rising malpractice premiums out of the debate.

Posted by: Kia Franklin | December 29, 2008 07:04 PM


Post a comment

Verification: