There is no denying that workers compensation premiums in Illinois are too high.  Illinois’ premiums are the third-highest in the nation, with only Montana and Alaska having higher premiums.  And reducing premiums would be a wonderful incentive to attempt to lure businesses to the state, or to encourage them to remain.

To that end, there are any number of legitimate reforms that could be enacted.  For example, the current system pays workers compensation benefits to workers who are injured while intoxicated or high on the job.  Our personal injury attorneys heartily agree that this is an area for targeted reform.  Likewise, we agree that costs could be reduced by eliminating payments for injuries that did not, in fact, occur while on the job.  Such reforms are practical, common-sense measures that would reduce costs without unfairly hurting injured workers.

But many of the “reforms” proposed are not – or at least are not so clear cut.  When some groups talk of workers compensation reform, what they actually mean is slashing benefits to injured and disabled workers.  It is unjust, and shortsighted, to attempt to reduce the workers compensation premiums paid by employers by cutting benefits to injured workers.  It is unjust because workers injured on the job, just like other injured victims, deserve to be compensated for their injuries.  And it is shortsighted because the revenue generated by any job creation from lowered premiums will be lost when injured workers, unable to obtain needed compensation, end up on the state’s benefit rolls.

Likewise, one of the proposed “reforms” is to impose an arbitrary cut-off age for benefits, which currently run for the remainder of an injured worker’s lifetime.  This is initially an appealing idea – why, after all, should an injured worker continue to receive benefits after social security or retirement benefits have begun?

As appealing as this proposal might be on the surface, however, our Chicago injury lawyers know better.  The problem, of course, is that every injured worker’s case is different, and the effects of workplace injuries are not cut-and-dry.  An injured worker who is disabled from his profession is often no longer able to contribute to retirement accounts.  His salary no longer increases, so benefits under pension programs and social security remain flat and stagnant.  And, at the end of the day, after his disability has left him unable to save towards retirement or pay off debts, social security will only cover a portion of his previous salary.  Thus, arbitrarily cutting off workers compensation benefits at retirement age could lead, for many, to financial disaster.

We urge those assigned to study workers compensation reform to steer clear of the too-easy answer.  There are many factors that must be considered before reforms are put in place – and the real-life ramifications for victims must be realistically assessed.  We are confident that, if this is done, real reform can be accomplished without coming at the expense of the victims of workplace injury.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Medical Negligence Myth #2: Malpractice Claims Drive Up Health Care Costs

There is no question that the cost of health care is out of control, and must be curtailed as part of health care reform.  However, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that medical malpractice liability has anything but a marginal impact on health care costs. That’s putting aside the benefits of medical malpractice liability, in the form of increased patient safety, deterrence of negligent medical conduct, and compensating victims of medical negligence.

The AAJ report cites two recent studies:  one conducted by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), and another done by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Both studies reach the same conclusion: the affect of malpractice claims on health care costs is marginal, at best.  Indeed, data from 2007 from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners — an organization of state insurance regulators — supports this conclusion, showing that merely 0.3% of the $2.2 trillion spent on health care is spent on malpractice claims.

This dollar figure spent on malpractice claims is substantially less than the $29 billion in measurable “costs” of preventable medical errors — including future medical care, but not including emotional and other non-liquidated damages.  If this “myth” concerning the relationship between medical malpractice claims and health care costs was correct, the percentage of health care costs associated with malpractice claims would be substantially higher than 0.3%.  Note that this figure of 0.3% does not come from a biased or partisan study — it comes directly from the insurance companies.

Nonetheless, the insurance lobby has argued that doctors practice “defensive medicine” — the ordering of unnecessary tests and procedures — out of the fear of medical malpractice liability, rather than simply following the appropriate standard of care in treating patients.  However, missing from the discussion is the fact that, in most institutions and contexts, doctors make more money if they perform more tests and procedures.  In other words, they get paid based on the act of performing a test or procedure, not based on the outcome of the test or procedure.  This also begs the question whether significantly less tests and procedures is the answer, given that each year hundreds of thousands of people are seriously injured or killed by medical malpractice.

At Passen Law Group, we will continue to fight for the rights of individuals, and their families, who are victims of medical malpractice.  To speak with one of our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys, call us at (312) 527-4500 for a free consultation.