This is my attempt to catch up to the 29 comments that were on the last post. Rich asked for comments from Devin and me on tort reform. There was some good discussion.
Tort reform is one area where party politics takes, perhaps, a different path than political philosophy.
Republicans like the idea of tort reform. Democrats don't. The plaintiff bar is squarely on the side of Democrats as evidenced by the money they contribute to that party. The defense industry is in the Republican camp. Plaintiff's lawyers and malpractice insurers need each other in order to keep dragging in the huge fees and monster premiums that each side keeps as a reward and shares with the political party that favors them in the never-ending game.
But what about conservatives and liberals? What about libertarianism in the tort-reform debate? For instance, one of the more popular methods of tort reform (and one that has been in place in Utah for several years) is a cap on awards, coupled with a sharing of the spoils with the State. Over a certain level, punitive damages go half to the State, then all to the State after another ceiling is reached. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Should a doctor be held individually to account, monetarily, for the damage that doctor does to a patient when the standard of care is breached (sounds conservative / libertarian to me), or should a fixed dollar amount be handed out to anyone who can show themselves injured by any healthcare provider in the system?
It is amazing how quickly philosophical consistency is tossed to the side when a short-term opportunity to score points or defend the ball presents itself in the party ballgame. I would be interested to hear how y'all perceive tort reform on a philosophical spectrum, and whether you think philosophical consistency should, in this case, be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. (Can you tell how I feel by the way I asked the question?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You're right dad, from a conservative/libertarian standpoint (and from a common sense standpoint), Utah's tort reforms make no sense at all. Why should the State reap a windfall if a doctor botches an operation on a patient? The doctor didn't harm the state. That's a head-scratcher.
Personally, I like the combination of the pre-screening process and a specialized "medical court." Many more junk suits won't even make it through the court house doors and plaintiffs lawyers' golden tongues won't be nearly as effective on an expert medical judge who is (hopefully) more grounded in the law, reason, and logic as opposed to passion, empathy, and emotion, like your average jury. I think this combination would do more to reduce premiums and defensive medicine practices than arbitrary caps on jury awards (with the State getting a slice of the pie). Plus, it is more philosophically consistent with a conservative/libertarian ideology.
Devin: where would these medical courts be located? would there be one per state, county, or city? it sounds like a reasonable idea, but is not one to which i've been introduced.
Chris: If it were your decision would you leave the system alone? If not, what would you change?
Good question Rich. I think 1 per state is not enough, but on the other hand, one medical court per every single city or county would be overkill. Maybe you could have one medical court per congressional district in each state, or have regional courts. I think you'd also have to look at the overall volume of medical malpractice claims currently clogging up court dockets as a means to help you decide how many medical courts your state would need.
In May 2007, Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus introduced the "Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act," which included s proposal to grant money to 10 states to establish medical courts as a kind of pilot program. A quick Google search could give you more info if you're interested in exploring the idea of medical courts further.
Good comments. I think health care reform is best carried out at the state level. I had not heard of specialized medical courts before, but it sounds like a good idea. Each state would need to figure out how tort reform looks for them.
For my money, the expensiveness of medical malpractice liability is two-fold, and I am not sure which is the biggest factor: Malpractice insurance premiums, and defensive practice of medicine. With regard to personal injury lawsuits, no-fault insurance changed the premiums without decreasing the incentive for drivers to be cautious. No fault insurance prohibits someone from bringing a "small" suit. The problem in medicine is that you start with a population that is sick/injured/already in need of medical care, where in no-fault and worker's comp, the population is presumed healthy (enough to drive or work).
So the only thing I can think of is to raise the bar so that only if you claim to have suffered something "serious" can you bring a malpractice claim. The way to keep doctors from doing stupid small stuff is through the state medical boards / licensing authorities.
Post a Comment