Medical Tort Reform

Will never freakin' happen...

Before malpractice was an issue we had doctors ordering unnecessary tests. Doctors were told to do this by their hospitals to recoup the cost of expensive equipment. A doctor can kill someone in one state, lose his license there, and set up practice in another state. In no other profession is a person given so many chances to screw up. He can be a drug addict and operating. In a capitalist economy, where people are supposed to believe in free enterprise, the lawsuit is the one means given to the individual to right wrongs. An accidental double amputee supporting two kids should not have a cap on the amount he/she can sue for. Why do we test athletes and people applying for jobs for drugs in their systems and not doctors? No, I want total right to sue. Maybe we should be able to sue the licensing board, as well.

Frivolous cases over time cause legit cases to be capped. This is not fair and must be stopped.

I think that a change could be made here that would not deprive anyone of any rights but make a real difference. The test in a medical malpractice case appears to be whether the physician fell below the standard of care. I think that in most cases the standard is set by testimony of expert witnesses. The jury decides from the testimony what the standard is.As I recollect from my reading on the subject, this test is also based on what is the standard in the community or locality. The same test applies to specialists.Perhaps standards could be set to cover each major procedure. A learned board or commission could do this work, but I suppose such would be lengthy, tedious and contentious.With national standards, or at least state-wide standards, then the criticism might go away about endless testing. Also a trial could be shortened and made less expensive if you had the experts testify as to whether or not the doctor met the published standard.I don't agree that doctors who are negl... Read more

Abichara, You addressed me directly and offered seven points on "Tort Reform. I took a minute to answer you. 1. The trial lawyers will hate this (sorry OP), but we do need to some significant medical tort reform. NO – Lawyers hate talking about any artful term in common vernacular. 2. This is a very simple proposal: you may only sue for gross negligence. If the wrong arm is amputated, you have a lawsuit. EXACTLY! Why would an attorney waste time on frivolous suits. The money comes when real tragedies are redressed. 3. But we also have to accept that in medicine, many times there are unpredictable or imperfect outcomes. There are things that the treating physician simply can't control--for those things, they should not be liable. AND THEY ARE PROTECTED. If a physician does everything correctly and a bad result follows, that’s not law suit material. That’s a bad day. 3. But on the flip side of the coin, we also NEED to enforce rules regarding good medical practices, including ... Read more

Tort reform goes beyond actual litigation. The medical industry now goes out of its way by conducting unnecessary tests (which drives up cost) just to cover their asses.

Obama is falling flat on this one. No mentions of tort reform, no mentions of reining in malpractice insurance. This is a biggie - fear of lawsuits makes doctors prescribe tests that patients don't need to try and avoid "jackpot justice" inflicted by massive malpractice suits. Why would Obama avoid this issue? Krauthammer thinks it's because trial lawyers are huge contributors to the Democrat coffers. Unless someone can put forth a better reason why Obama might be skirting this obvious issue, I tend to agree with him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302723.html

The trial lawyers will hate this (sorry OP), but we do need to some significant medical tort reform. This is a very simple proposal: you may only sue for gross negligence. If the wrong arm is amputated, you have a lawsuit. But we also have to accept that in medicine, many times there are unpredictable or imperfect outcomes. There are things that the treating physician simply can't control--for those things, they should not be liable. But on the flip side of the coin, we also NEED to enforce rules regarding good medical practices, including especially sanitation and cleanliness in medical facilities. I know people who have checked into hospitals for minor procedures and not come out alive due infections caused by unsanitary conditions at hospitals. This is a major crisis in the health care industry that's going unreported. We do need to accept the fact that the practice of medicine isn't perfect by far, but I also believe that every person has a right to know their docto... Read more

"Medical Tort Reform" is newspeak for denying patients any recourse when they've been wronged by a "healthcare" provider. As OP pointed out, it's also a red herring.