Miami Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Americans should look at Insurance Reform Before Espousing Tort Reform

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:39:30 GMT

There is a lot of energy about the various Health Care Bills that are being prepared and proposed by Congress. One issue on lots of minds is tort reform. Some elected officials are for tort reform, but those are the same politicians that accept big checks from insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and corporations who have a vested interest in "reform" (i.e. elimination of access to court by victims of medical negligence).

Sadly, the tort reformist politicians who have an agenda separate and apart from protecting their own constituencies, are propped up by Fox News and other "journalists". But the reporters are not being completely honest with the public. Either that or they simply don't do their homework and research the issue. Either option is irresponsible because the American public is actually buying into what is being reported. Now there is an entire group of tort reform supporters, which based on the information they believe to be accurate, are claiming tort reform is necessary in order to drastically reduce the cost of healthcare for Americans. “Enacting a typical set of proposals would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years,” wrote Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf in his blog.

Others, like former Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley, have said that tort reform should be bundled with a healthcare package to attract Republican support for universal coverage. But while lowering costs may sound nice, it’s not reality. And in the case of Bradley, nobody wins with a pork-laden bill.

“Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail,” Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, told the New York Times in a recent interview.

Baker said medical malpractice tort costs in 2007 were $30.4 billion out of a more than a $2 trillion health care system, meaning litigation costs and malpractice insurance constituted about 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. In fact, he argued that since there have been about the same number of claims today as 20 years ago, the cost of health care has doubled in that time frame, the number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations, there actually is a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

But medical costs still have skyrocketed. Baker says to consider that the American population is aging, we’ve had expensive advances in technology, the US is a rich nation, and the richer you get, the more money you spend on health care, and compared to other countries, the US has heavy administrative costs from the private-insurance system.

And in some parts of the country, notably Florida, doctors aren’t even required to carry insurance. Interestingly, Florida doctors are doing some of the loudest complaining, but a considerable number of them,particularly ones who perform surgery, don't pay a single dollar in premiums. A state physician database showed that one in eight doctors statewide in Florida opt out of malpractice insurance under a state law that lets them go without coverage. The law says doctors can go uninsured if they post signs in their offices and promise to pay up to $250,000 per malpractice award, with a maximum of $750,000 per year.

This policy has negative consequences. First, the patient is left with little discourse in the case of legitimate medical malpractice. Second, the insurance companies raise premiums to make up for all the doctors who aren’t insured. According to the South Florida. More responsible reporting, such as the Sun-Sentinel, has disclosed that premiums since 2003 have gone down yearly by less than 10 percent as insurer profits climbed to an average of 20 percent in 2006.

Instead of focusing energy on tort reform, the focus would be better on reducing premiums and reforming insurance companies. And there is no doubt that uninsured doctors should not be allowed to practice. Period. Anywhere. Unless of course they will agree to submit that all acquisitions in their name, their wife's or husband's name, and the companies created as shell corporations are jointly and several liable for monies awarded by a jury in a negligence case.

In the cases where those doctors who are uninsured . That starts with helping insure doctors are compensated in a way they deem fair, which includes making premiums affordable. And should someone be injured through negligence, and there not be either assets or insurance to recover from, unless that person is independently wealthy, guess who pays for the ongoing needs and medical care they require going forward? That's right- the taxpayers.

Medical malpractice litigation isn’t the problem; it’s time to focus on some solutions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Why Link Medical Malpractice Reform With Healthcare Reform? Does not make sense.

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:20:48 GMT

For the past few months, the one public policy that has been on every American's mind is health care reform. It seems like everyone has their own, unique opinion on the state of our country's health care system and how to best reform it, if reform is even necessary.

If you even begin to do some research on the subject, though, you find that there are a lot of red herrings in the health care debate, and it is very easy to be swayed by biased information that serves a particular interest group.

Take, for instance, the argument for litigation reform. Many doctors and insurance companies claim that the rising health care costs in America are caused by rampant medical malpractice claims by people who want to "get rich quick" off of the medical system, and by the subsequent need for doctors to perform "defensive medicine", wherein they perform unnecessary tests to cover themselves in case their patient decides to sue them for negligence. If we were to believe the people who support caps on awards in malpractice cases, all we would have to do to ensure quality, affordable universal health care is stop rewarding the countless individuals who rob the medical system of millions of dollars in rewards for petty injuries. Stories like the McDonald's customer who spilled coffee on her lap and supposedly won rewards of $2.7 million do not help the case that malpractice reform is a red herring in the health care debate. (It is worth knowing that the case of Liebeck vs. McDonald's is a bit more complicated than the story known by most people, and the woman's rewards were not as ridiculous as many have made them seem and in fact she ended up with very little money despite that the McDonald's store that she sued had several earlier similar instances of burning coffee which had caused injuries to customers).

So, is medical malpractice reform the solution to our health care problem? Not according to several prominent economists. Take, for instance, the opinion of Amitabh Chandra, a well-respected Harvard economist:

“Medical malpractice dollars are a red herring,” Chandra said in a telephone interview. “No serious economist thinks that saving money in med mal is the way to improve productivity in the system. There’s so many other sources of inefficiency.”

The results of a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show that medical malpractice cases make up only 2% of the country's health care spending, and "defensive medicine" only accounts for 5-9%. These numbers hardly reflect a significant source of spending in our health care system.

Proving this point even further, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that even if states were to lower malpractice costs by 25-30%, health care costs would only be lowered about 0.4%, and there would be an equally negligible effect on health care insurance premiums.

The real cost of health care is outlined very clearly on the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation website, which finds the causes of rising health care to be:

Prescription drugs and technology – Spending on prescription drugs and new medical technologies has been cited as the primary contributor to the increase in overall health spending. Some analysts state that the availability of more expensive, state-of-the-art drugs and technological services fuels health care spending not only because the development costs of these products must be recouped by industry but also because they generate consumer demand for more intense, costly services even if they are not necessarily cost-effective.

Chronic disease – The nature of health care in the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past century with longer life spans and greater prevalence of chronic illnesses. This has placed tremendous demands on the health care system, particularly an increased need for treatment of ongoing illnesses and long-term care services such as nursing homes; it is estimated that health care costs for chronic disease treatment account for over 75% of national health expenditures.

Aging of the population – Health expenses rise with age and as the baby boomers are now in their middle years, some say that caring for this growing population has raised costs. This trend will continue as the baby boomers will begin qualifying for Medicare in 2011 and many of the costs are shifted to the public sector. However, experts agree that aging of the population contributes minimally to the high growth rate of health care spending.

Administrative costs – It is estimated that at least 7% of health care expenditures are for administrative costs (e.g. marketing, billing) and this portion is much lower in the Medicare program (<2%), which is operated by the federal government. Some argue that the mixed public-private system creates overhead costs and large profits that are fueling health care spending.

The facts are clear: medical malpractice claims are not a significant contributor to rising health care costs, and capping rewards in malpractice cases would not make health care more affordable. They make up less than 1% of total health care costs. 1%! If anything, capping rewards for malpractice cases is dangerous, because it means that doctors are held less accountable for their mistakes, and that patients who need compensation for wrongful pain, injury, or death will not be able to receive the justice they are due. It also means that the states supplement the medical care and treatment of the terribly injured person who cannot afford their ongoing care. What caps mean s we pay for doctor's negligence while insurance companies collecting premiums are given a pass. How does this make sense to anyone? If it doesn't make sense to you, I would hope you stay away from linking tort reform with any discussion on health care reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Medical Malpractice Caps Benefit Insurance Companies

Seth Miles — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:45:04 GMT

Drastic caps on medical malpractice damages awards enacted by the Florida Legislature were supposed to result in far lower insurance premiums for doctors. In fact, Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation reports that rates dropped by a mere 3% last year. Where is the money going?

To the insurance companies, of course. Credit rating organization A.M Best found in May that malpractice insurers nationally in 2006 had their best year since the mid-1990s. The end result, injured victims aren't compensated for their injuries, doctors' insurance rates hardly go down, and insurance companies get a windfall.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Seth Miles

Woman Rewarded $2.4 Million Because of Gynecologist's Mistake

Jenny Albano — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:34:22 GMT

A Broward County jury awarded more than $2.4 million to Karlene Chambers of Pembroke Pines after her gynecologist left a sponge-like material in her following a cesarean procedure.

Chambers sued her doctor, Joseph Becerra of the Pembroke Pines OB/GYN Associates, Memorial Hospital West and other medical agencies involved in the mishap for negligence.

According to Chamber's attorney Crane Johnstone, the women went to Memorial Hospital West on September 9th to give birth, two days later she was given a C-section. Chambers checked out of the hospital on Sept. 14th but returned to her doctor three days later with an illness. Becerra prescribed her antibiotics but Chambers did not recover and acquired a fever. She had to come back to the hospital of Sept. 19 and have a X-ray. The X-ray showed that there was a foreign object in her, but the problem was never reported due to miscommunication.

On Sept. 22 Chambers had to go back to the hospital and receive a CAT scan. The CAT scan revealed that the foreign object was a foot long sponge that the doctor left in Chambers pelvis during the C-section. The sponge is what caused her to have an infection in her uterus and her abdomen. Chambers had to have emergency surgery to remove the sponge.

According to Johnstone, Chambers, a first-grade teacher at Fairway Elementary in Miramar, lost her ability to have more children because of the botched operation, and suffers from other health problems.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Medical Malpractice Premiums Reduced!!! Kidding. Kidding.

Staff Writer — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:27:59 GMT

I'm really enjoying the posts of Greedy Trial Lawyer. He/She appears to be an anonymous colleague who has tongue-in-cheekly (is that a word?) embraced the way proponents of tort reform view him/her.

A recent post from Greedy Trial Lawyer notes an article from PolState.com which points out that Iowa is just the lastest in the long line of states attempting to cap punitive damages in medical malpractice suits. GTL wants to know if we've reached the promised land of reduced medical malpractice premiums yet:

The main justification for tort reform in medical malpractice matters was to reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance so medical providers (mostly doctors) would not be driven into poverty, forced to eat cheaper steaks and take shorter ski vacations. Well, the promised benefits for the docs are not materializing. Those rates, they keep on arising. Raise your hand if this surprises you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Deadly Errors in Intensive Care

Staff Writer — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:24:18 GMT

A report from the U.S. Pharmacopeia last week revealed that between 2000 and 2004, nearly 40,000 errors were reported in intensive care units around the United States, many resulting in death or serious injury or illness to the patient. Note that this study looked at "reported medical errors", which makes me wonder how many of these deadly mistakes go unreported and unknown to the families and affected patients. That's 10,000 reported errors per year. One study shows that the vast majority of medical errors, perhaps 90% go completely unreported.

According to pharmacist John Santell, who led the study:

There were actually more than 950 different medications recorded in these error reports....This tells us that there are so many different medications being used to treat a wide variety of illnesses, making it a big challenge for any doctor, nurse or pharmacist to be knowledgeable about these drugs.

It also tells us something else about how drug companies are doing a great job of marketing, distributing and promoting the use of their drugs without educating the medical practictioners responsible for administering the drugs. The U.S. Institute of Medicine estimates that nearly 100,000 people are killed by medical errors each year,

and the FDA estimates that a staggering 1.3 million Americans are injured by medication errors each year. That's one in every 250 people, not patients, injured by drug prescription errors. The study by U.S. Pharmacopeia found that the errors in their study killed more than a dozen patients and "seriously injured another" 68. And that's just in intensive care units. Often times, insurance companies will override a doctor's prescription and persuade the patient to use a cheaper drug substitute, which undoubtedly opens the door to higher risk of unanticipated or unwelcome side affects. This shocking report should help bring to light the risk of medical malpractice and errors facing patients today.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

How do I know if I am a victim of Medical Malpractice ?

Staff Writer — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:12:57 GMT

Medical malpractice occurs when the actions of a physician or health care provider are below the standard of care. When a health care provider either fails to do something that should have been done, or does something that should not have been done, the consequences being injury or death, the victim or victim's family may have a claim of medical negligence or medical malpractice. Doctors and other health-care providers must follow certain standards of care for patients. While a simple mistake is not enough to constitute negligence, a death or injury caused by the failure to provide reasonably appropriate or common standards of care or the failure to diagnose a detectable illness may be malpractice.

InjuryBoard.com offers information on all types of medical malpractice cases including but not limited to those involved in the negligence by a doctor or physician, hospital, nurse, dentist or any other health care provider. InjuryBoard firms aggressively investigate and pursue claims for injuries and death arising out of: cardiac medicine, surgical malpractice and mistakes, cancer misdiagnosis and other diseases , cosmetic surgical malpractice, obstetrical malpractice and birth injuries (Brachial Plexus/Erbs Palsy), gynecological malpractice, anesthesia injuries, and injuries related to oxygen deprivation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Insurance Companies Inflated Medical Malpractice Claims

Staff Writer — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:31:17 GMT

A study performed by the non-profit watchdog group, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, found that Insurers consistently overstated their estimated amounts paid out in claims, inflating their losses by an AVERAGE of 46% between 1986 and 1994. These misleading numbers were supported by documents filed with state regulators and in statements made to public officials, the Insurance Journal and Washinton Post reported.

FTCR's study found that isurance companies reported claim losses of $39 billion dollars when they only paid out $27 billion in claims. The insurance claims study alleges that insurance companies are passing off their investment and financial losses on to doctors,

not increasing premiums as a result of claims.

"By inflating their estimated 'losses' as much as 66 percent, medical malpractice insurance companies have misled regulators, lawmakers and the public and overcharged physicians and other health care providers," said FTCR's Harvey Rosenfield. "Because all insurance companies use the same flawed accounting practices, it is likely that the insurance industry is responsible for several billion dollars in premium overcharges over the last few years, a period during which premiums have soared. The nation's economic stability and security demands that the insurance industry's accounting practices be investigated, and reforms put in place such as those that were made after widespread financial fraud was uncovered at Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen and other corporations."

This study reinforces what we have believed for some time. When their investments go south, the oligopolistic insurance companies use their colossal influence and deep resources to mount campaigns and efforts to blame medical malpractice losses on personal injury lawyers, shift premium costs to all doctors, increase costs to patients and putting more of the burden on the US government.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Blood Thinner Overdose Linked To Bleeding Problems

Staff Writer — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:50:11 GMT

A recent study conducted by Duke University's Dr. Karen Alexander found that almost 50% of heart attack patients are given too high a dosage of blood thinning medication, and this can lead to excessive bleeding.

Those given too much of two newer blood thinners -- low molecular weight heparin and drugs sometimes called ''super-aspirin'' -- had more than a 30 percent increased chance of major bleeding than those given the recommended dose.
Most of the more than one million heart attack patients in the United States each year have the type of heart attack studied -- relatively small but still serious, involving plaque-narrowed arteries and clots that reduce blood flow to the heart.
An estimated 117,000 episodes of bleeding occur each year in these patients, including excessive bleeding at catheter sites, from pre-existing stomach ulcers, and in the brain, where it is particularly dangerous, said Duke University researcher Dr. Karen Alexander, lead author of the study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association.

Read the report on blood thinner bleeding problems.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Medical Negligence Awards Not Affecting Rising Costs of Doctors' Premiums

Staff Writer — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:13:22 GMT

A study of medical negligence awards payments from 1991 to 2003 finds that increases in payments are consistent with health care costs and are not driving up the costs of premiums for doctors. See abstract of article: Medical Malpractice "crisis"

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer