Articles Posted in Tort Reform

Larry’s recent column on the med mal issue.

Update:   link repaired.

Here is an article that talks about the negotiations concerning the med mal legislation currently pending in the General Assembly.

This excerpt tells it all:  ""Basically [the potential compromise] was done between the legislators themselves representing probably both sides of the interests," Miller [VP of the TMA] said. "One of the things that didn’t come through was that doctors _ who are probably the main focus of this legislation _ were not party to these negotiations."

He is right.  The main push for and therefore focus of the legislation is doctors.  Not patients.  Not the common good.  Not justice.

State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company , the doctor-owned medical malpractice insurance carrier, continues to enjoy profitability, according to my review of its 2006 Annual Report  that was recently filed with the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance.

A few highlights:

* Surplus, the insurance industry equivalent of net worth, increased $33,000,000 to a total of $217,000,000.  This represents an increase of almost 18% in one year.  This follows a $16.4 million dollar increase in 2005.

The Tennessean published an op-ed piece I wrote today.  Read it here.

The bill to limit health care provider’s responsibility for their errors comes up in Senate Judiciary tomorrow afternoon.  Here is a list of some recent posts on the issue:

"The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax"

Another Aspect of the Big Lie

"It’s not personal responsibility I have a problem with.  It is the constant threat of litigation that gets to me.  And that’s why we need to cap damages in malpractice lawsuits."

How many times have you heard some member of the health care industry say that? 

I guess that the argument means that the industry doesn’t mind valid lawsuits (how can they say anything else?) but they don’t like non-meritorious lawsuits.  But how does capping damages stop non-meritorious lawsuits?  Capping damages only limits recoveries for claims already found to be meritorious.

SVMIC, the well-managed, physician-owned liability insurance company that insures an estimated 90% of the doctors in the state, publishes a newsletter called "Riskpoints."  It is available on their website.

The Fall 2006 edition of the newsletter  (article in on Page 2 of the newsletter). listed the top ten jury verdicts against SVMIC insureds in the six year period 2000-2005.  Four of those verdicts were by out-of-state juries (SVMIC writes insurance in multiple states). 

The largest verdict was the verdict in Hunter v. Ura, a Davidson County case, in the amount of $5.8M.  The decedent, a six-figure wage earner, died as the result of an anesthesa error.  He left a wife and two minor children behind.

This is a comment from "Chris" to my post on Tuesday

I agree that the main focus is economics. In general, one CV surgeon is needed for approximately every 35-50 thousand people. Now, it is impossible to do this if you are the only one as then there is constraint of constant call, etc. So, specialists tend to concentrate together. The other factor that brings these physicians into larger areas is that is where the hospitals are large enough to have a dedicated OR team, ICU and cardiac cath labs with the attending cardiologists. To further apply economics, it would cost more to place these facilities in a rural area that it would cost for an entire hospital. Also, the re-embursement for bypass surgery has greatly dropped and the risk of litigation is high. As a result, it is economically unwise to practice in a small area, with a small patient volume, inadequeate facilities.

Chris – what is the source for your data?  Are you aware of statistics that tell us what sort of population is required to support a each class of specialist?

"We have to limit the liability of negligent health care providers because doctors are leaving medicine to work at Krystal (or whatever)."  That’s the non-stop babble we hear from lobbyists and pr flacks for the health care industry.

Then, there are the facts.

Consider this:  cardiac surgeons are looking for work.  According to this article from USA Today, "[t]he use of artery-opening stents has helped lead to a sharp drop in the number of patients having cardiac bypass surgery and contributed to a tight job market for cardiac surgeons and falling interest in the specialty by medical school graduates."

In 2003 Texans passed Proposition 12.  It placed caps on human losses in valid medical negligence claims and put in place other restrictions on the rights of citizens injuryed by medical negligence to seek justice. "Patients were told to expect significant improvements in health care across the state, as well as dramatically lower medical liability insurance premiums for their family doctors."

So now what?  Or as a friend of mine would put it, "how’s that workin’ for ya?"

Here is a brief summary of a report from Texas Watch: