Posts Tagged ‘Tort Reform’

AMA Uses Bad “Facts” to Support Bad Law – H.R. 5

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

As we have previously noted, the leadership in the Federal House of Representatives has now moved to undo the recently-passed federal healthcare reform, and replace it with legislation designed solely to protect doctors and prevent the victims of medical malpractice from fully recovering for the harm they suffer. The American Medical Association has now come out in support of H.R. 5, in a published ad.  Our top medical malpractice attorneys join with the American Association for Justice in refuting both the AMA’s claims, and the falsified numbers used to support them.

The AMA’s ad is full of overblown hyperbole – the organization asserts that America’s medical liability system is “broken,” and contains much discussion of “frivolous” lawsuits.  Naturally, the AMA asserts that these lawsuits are responsible for rising healthcare costs.  As we have previously discussed, such claims are not only unfounded, they are directly contradicted by the actual evidence.

Perhaps that is why the AMA felt the need to invent statistics in support of its claims.

For example, the AMA’s add claims that 64 percent of medical liability claims in 2009 were dropped, withdrawn or dismissed, using this statistic to assert that the majority of medical malpractice lawsuits are “frivolous.”

But this analysis is flawed on many fronts.  Most notably, it confuses the term “claim” with an actual lawsuit.  A claim includes any demand made to an insurer for benefits under a policy. Thus, the 64 percent of “claims” which were dropped have nothing to do with medical malpractice, but with liability for payment of medical expenses – a very different form of medical liability.

When actual medical malpractice lawsuits are considered, a very different picture emerges.  In fact, between 1999 and 2008, medical malpractice lawsuits in the United States dropped by 15 percent, a significant reduction indeed.

Likewise, the AMA’s ad asserts that physician defendants won 88 percent of medical liability claims which went to trial in 2009. Again, the AMA argues that this proves that the vast majority of medical malpractice claims are “frivolous.”  That claim is completely unfounded.

In fact, only 3 percent of patents injured by medical negligence file a lawsuit at all.  This is in large part because so many instances of medical negligence are completely clear cut, and fall into oft-repeating patterns (infections from improper sanitization when inserting a catheter, for instance). Insurance companies settle the bulk of these claims, which then never reach trial at all.  This is not just rhetoric – no less than researchers at Harvard University have found that the refusal to pay well-founded malpractice claims is a far bigger problem than so-called “frivolous” claims.

The AMA’s financial “facts” are no better.  In the add, the Association asserts that H.R. 5 is necessary because many doctors pay $150,000 annually to insure against medical malpractice claims. Even were this figure accurate (it is not, and indeed, malpractice premiums have been lower each year since 2006), that has nothing to do with H.R. 5′s proposed draconian caps on damages payable to victims.

You see, as our personal injury attorneys have previously noted, there is already much real data on what happens when damages caps are put in place, as various states – including Illinois – have been experimenting with these caps for years.  What has occurred?  Damage caps do nothing to lower malpractice insurance premiums.  States without damages caps actually have lower insurance premiums, on average.

So why is the AMA so keen to support H.R. 5?  Because the bill would limit the liability of its members, pure and simple.  With H.R. 5′s nationwide damages cap in place, doctors who commit malpractice, and the companies who insure them, would face substantially reduced liability.  This would come at the expense of victims, who would be prevented from recovering for the harm done to them, and the public, who would be serviced by doctors with reduced incentive to work hard to ensure patient safety.

We urge our readers and our representatives to oppose this dangerous and ill-conceived legislation.  All our lives could depend upon it.

For a free consultation with a top-rated medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 AMA Uses Bad “Facts” to Support Bad Law   H.R. 5

Patient Rights Advocates Strongly Oppose HR 5

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

HR 5 Opposition 300x155 Patient Rights Advocates Strongly Oppose HR 5The experienced medical malpractice attorneys of Passen Law Group have repeatedly spoken out against HR 5, the anti-patient legislation currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Last week in Roll Call, a widely read publication in Washington, DC, other patient rights advocates spoke out strongly against the bill as well.

HR 5 bears the title, the “Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act.”  In reality, the only aim of HR 5 is to bar  victims of negligence and malpractice from obtaining justice and recovering from wrongdoers for their injuries. HR 5 targets not only victims of medical malpractice, but also those seriously injured or killed by nursing home abuse and neglect, or by dangerous medical products, including pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices.

The House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as ObamaCare), although as the Senate has not followed suit, the Act remains law.  But the House promised to pass a bill that would also reform healthcare and provide for the needs of patients and the public.

Instead, they have given us HR 5.

Experience with “tort reform” at the state level has now taught us that eliminating the rights of medical malpractice victims does nothing to reduce medical costs or malpractice premiums.  As Gibson Vance, president of the American Association of Justice, noted in Roll Call, one out of every three hospital patients in the U.S. is the victim of medical error.  At least 98,000 Americans lose their lives each year due to medical malpractice – preventable medical mistakes.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers cannot help but wonder, then, why removing responsibility from those who fail to take the precautions necessary to prevent these deaths could be sound federal policy.  The current death rate is is the equivalent of two 737 jets crashing every day.  It is inconceivable that if those crashes were occurring, Congress would be taking action to protect the airlines and airplane manufacturers from liability, and thus decrease passenger safety.

And, as Vance persuasively argued, the same house leadership advancing HR 5 has repeatedly and publicly argued that under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government must take a limited role, respect the limits of the power granted to it, and respect the rights of the states.  HR 5 flies in the face of this reasoning, dramatically expanding federal power and usurping an area of law that has historically been the province of the states.

While House leaders argue that this expansion is justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, they likewise point to the Commerce Clause as the reason why ObamaCare must be repealed.  The truth is that there is no consistent reasoning or interpretation at work here – they will point to the Commerce Clause to support what they support, and to undermine what they do not.

The ordinary citizens are the ones who stand to lose the most from this lack of principle.  HR 5, and its stripping of victims rights, would remove accountability from our medical providers, leaving healthcare in the United States dramatically more dangerous than its already troublesome state.  Under HR 5, physicians, hospitals, and other providers would have far less incentive to improve safety and reduce errors, and those injured would have no real recourse in the courts.  A fine federal policy, indeed.

The top malpractice attorneys of Passen Law Group stand with Vance and the American Association for Justice.  We oppose HR 5, and any other federal or state attempt to deny justice to those who are injured.  We urge Congress to abandon HR 5, and instead to focus on reducing malpractice premiums by reducing malpractice – improving patient safety.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Patient Rights Advocates Strongly Oppose HR 5

States Express Bipartisan Opposition to Federal Tort Reform

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

Our top medical malpractice attorneys have often spoken out against so-called “tort reform.”  These “reforms” generally have little to no impact on the costs of medical care or medical malpractice insurance premiums, while simultaneously taking away the rights and remedies of the victims of medical malpractice. We are fiercely opposed to proposals where, in the name of “reform,” the injured and their families are denied justice.

Now, not only are such “reforms” threatened on the state level, but Congress has made tort reform a federal problem. As part of Republican efforts to replace the recently enacted federal healthcare reform laws, Congress is currently considering H.R. 5, a devastating tort reform law that goes beyond medical malpractice.  H.R. 5 is the largest component to date in Republican’s efforts to overhaul the health care overhaul.

If enacted, the bill would drastically curtail the rights of victims injured by medical malpractice and product liability at the hands of doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies and other healthcare providers.  H.R. 5 would place a cap on non-economic damages (such as compensation for pain and suffering or loss of quality of life) resulting from medical malpractice, limiting each victim to $250,000.  The bill would also institute a nationwide, shortened statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims.  The medical malpractice lawyers of Passen Law Group are strongly opposed to these draconian measures.

Fortunately, this legislation faces substantial opposition from the states – even those with state legislatures that favor tort reform under state law.  The National Conference of State Legislators has now spoken out against the bill, in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce health subpanel expressing its “strong, bipartisan opposition” to H.R. 5. The subpanel is currently holding hearings on the bill.  The NCSL’s campaign against H.R. 5 will also include a series of meetings between Republican Congressmen and state legislators.

The NCSL’s  “bipartisan” opposition (meaning even Republicans are opposed to the law) is based on the principle that each state should have the authority to set its own standards on medical malpractice, and to enact the reforms best-suited to the state.  Indeed, as previously discussed in this blog, the Illinois Supreme Court, like other state supreme courts, struck down a similar state tort reform law as a violation of the state constitution.

Although we would have preferred a stronger statement on the futility and injustice of “tort reforms,” we support the NCSL in its opposition of H.R. 5.  State “reform” efforts have been damaging enough to the rights of severely injured victims, and the families of the deceased.  The last thing that is needed is a federal mandate preventing those who are injured from recovering from the wrongdoers.  We join NCSL in its opposition, and hope that their efforts, and those of others, will successfully prevent this travesty from becoming federal law.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 States Express Bipartisan Opposition to Federal Tort Reform