Wednesday, August 04, 2004
California malpractice insurance rates staying low
[Lisa Girion, "Justice Denied?," The Los Angeles Times, 1 August 2004.]
California's medical malpractice caps are keeping insurance costs far lower than those in other states, where doctors are closing their doors because of the high premiums. California has a "$250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, set by a landmark 1975 California malpractice law. There are no caps on jury awards for economic damages, such as lost wages and medical expenses." Now, some are saying that California needs to get in line with the rest of the country:
California's malpractice law has been cited by some — including President Bush — as a national model for tort reform. Supporters point out that the state's malpractice insurance rates have risen less than half the national average since the cap took effect.
Yet insurers report no decline in the rate of malpractice suits per doctor since the cap went into effect.
"No person with a valid claim for malpractice is going without a lawyer," said attorney Fred Hiestand, who runs Californians Allied for Patient Protection, a Sacramento-based group representing the California Medical Assn. and insurance companies.
But in California, the malpractice law is coming under increasing fire.
Some critics of the $250,000 cap have pointed to a recent Rand Corp. study, which showed that in 45% of malpractice cases that went to trial, judges had to cut noneconomic damage awards by juries — who are not told about the cap. On average, California juries awarded $800,000 in malpractice death cases from 1995 to 1999, Rand found.
In some eyes, that suggests that medical malpractice victims and their families should be reaping much larger payouts than the law allows.
"If malpractice rates continue to go up, doctors will not want to take high-risk patients," said [Dr. Jack Lewin, head of the California Medical Assn]. "There's the trade-off. Do you have access to doctors in an emergency, or do you have access to lawyers in the rare event that something goes wrong?"
"You don't want to be in a situation where an emergency room doctor taking care of you is unhappy because they are afraid they are going to get sued," [Howard] Mandel [a Los Angeles obstetrician-gynecologist] said. "The money we're wasting to protect our backsides could be spent" providing coverage for uninsured people.
Indeed, Hiestand said, doctors, hospitals and malpractice insurers are getting hit with ever-larger economic damage awards.
Without the malpractice cap law, "they'd be sunk," he said. "Settlements are driven by verdicts, and they have been going up astronomically because of the economic damage component. If you don't find some way to control that, that's going to be the next crisis."
[Lisa Girion, "Justice Denied?," The Los Angeles Times, 1 August 2004.]
California's medical malpractice caps are keeping insurance costs far lower than those in other states, where doctors are closing their doors because of the high premiums. California has a "$250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, set by a landmark 1975 California malpractice law. There are no caps on jury awards for economic damages, such as lost wages and medical expenses." Now, some are saying that California needs to get in line with the rest of the country:
California's malpractice law has been cited by some — including President Bush — as a national model for tort reform. Supporters point out that the state's malpractice insurance rates have risen less than half the national average since the cap took effect.
Yet insurers report no decline in the rate of malpractice suits per doctor since the cap went into effect.
"No person with a valid claim for malpractice is going without a lawyer," said attorney Fred Hiestand, who runs Californians Allied for Patient Protection, a Sacramento-based group representing the California Medical Assn. and insurance companies.
But in California, the malpractice law is coming under increasing fire.
Some critics of the $250,000 cap have pointed to a recent Rand Corp. study, which showed that in 45% of malpractice cases that went to trial, judges had to cut noneconomic damage awards by juries — who are not told about the cap. On average, California juries awarded $800,000 in malpractice death cases from 1995 to 1999, Rand found.
In some eyes, that suggests that medical malpractice victims and their families should be reaping much larger payouts than the law allows.
"If malpractice rates continue to go up, doctors will not want to take high-risk patients," said [Dr. Jack Lewin, head of the California Medical Assn]. "There's the trade-off. Do you have access to doctors in an emergency, or do you have access to lawyers in the rare event that something goes wrong?"
"You don't want to be in a situation where an emergency room doctor taking care of you is unhappy because they are afraid they are going to get sued," [Howard] Mandel [a Los Angeles obstetrician-gynecologist] said. "The money we're wasting to protect our backsides could be spent" providing coverage for uninsured people.
Indeed, Hiestand said, doctors, hospitals and malpractice insurers are getting hit with ever-larger economic damage awards.
Without the malpractice cap law, "they'd be sunk," he said. "Settlements are driven by verdicts, and they have been going up astronomically because of the economic damage component. If you don't find some way to control that, that's going to be the next crisis."
Comments:
Post a Comment
