I just love how lawyers are made out to be the dastardly villains in this. As if they were the ones that ****** up or outright killed someone. Worst thing they do is do their job and get a ton of money from an insurance company. Glad we put a stop to that so the poor insurance companies can stay solvent and negligent doctors can keep cutting away. Great system. So glad we got a hold of those outrageous thieves- um, I mean lawyers.
Approximate percentage of doctors sued for malpractice: 100% So tell me, is every single doctor bad, or what? I have to say, I know lots of physicians; the overwhelming majority (1) get sued and (2) do their level best to take care of their patients, making an emotional investment in how each person does. Next time the average person is threatened that he'll be sued if anything goes wrong by the family of a person he is helping for free after working for more than 24 hours straight will be, for most, the first. It is old hat for most of my friends. The system has been badly broken for a long time. The bad apples slide along because their "punishment" for screwing up is that their insurance company pays out. The (majority) good apples have to deal with the exorbitant insurance costs and the lawsuits. Punishment for taking unwarranted liberties with another's health should be a criminal matter and one taken seriously. "Pain and suffering" aka noneconomic damages are the wrong attempted solution.
TxSthorn- Your just kind of playing semantics with those links. While technically not a "malpractice suit" by their definition, when a physician is notified of a potential claim, is reviewed by a panel, has records scrutinized, is deposed by a lawyer, etc I'm guessing they consider that being sued. Its probably not 100% (especially factoring in specialties that do little in the way of treatment) but it is darn close. Interestingly the link you provided to Missouri's situation actually strengthens the case of your opponent. It admits that doctors were leaving certain areas of the state in droves as a result of the climate there. This is a direct quote from the article you linked: "Fortunately, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Professional liability reform in Missouri in 2006 stabilized premiums. This will hopefully see a return of doctors to underserved areas of Missouri as in Texas where record numbers of physicians have been relocating since reform was passed there in 2003." Also, simply using lawsuit payouts as "cost" is ridiculous. Percentage wise, Very few med mal cases get to a trial. Most are settled or dismissed. The cost to settle and/or dismiss a claim is massive. Remember we are talking about a small niche of insurance- specifically med mal coverage for physicians. These insurers lost BILLIONS of dollars writing coverage for the doctors in the run up to the reforms. BILLIONS. Not investment losses, underwriting losses. for every $1 of premium they collected they paid out about $1.30 in cost.
Huckleberry, the point of the law was that it was becoming too expensive for doctors to get liability insurance in their practices. from having worked a bit on the prop, it was always about doctor's insurance rates. many doctors in texas, especially family practice types in the valley and south texas had their liability insurance rates skyrocket and were driven either out of the region or out of business. if someone was campaigning for lower insurance premiums for patients, that's all well and good, but that's not what the proposition was intended to cover. It was to cap liability insurance rates or bring them to a level where the doctors could actually afford to be insured.
Brisk- Did you even read what I wrote? You seem to be arguing different things. My post had nothing to do with whether or not an insurance company classified something as a claim or not or frivolous or not. I was responding to the post that said only a small percentage of doctors are sued. His links gave a very specific definition of "sued". I argued that when a doctor gets a notification of a potential action against him, gets deposed, gets his records reviewed etc he (the doctor) equates that with being sued. In your hypothetical, it doesn't seem that the doctor is ever deposed that an atttorney is ever hired by the defense etc. I would not call that getting sued either. But thats 2 very different cases. Also, you are really being disingenuous. This does not apply to every single PI attorney but it applies to many. When they notify the insurance company of a potential claim the insurance company has to investigate as well. Many notices are filed simply to preserve limitation statutes. If a claim is "investigated" by an attorney for a client it also HAS to be investigated by the defense. The defense needs to know what happened as well because if there is an issue they need to prepare their case as well. If it goes away as you suggest some do (and I believe you) there was still considerable cost to determine no action was warranted. How would you suggest the insurance company name that type of claim? Maybe you object to frivilous. If they called them "we spent a lot of money to determine that no fault was determined to be found of our doctor and closed the file" would you feel better.
Just some numbers in case you all are interested. Data from Medical Economics Magazine--available online. Interpret it as you wish. In a survey of 7,000 physicians in 2003: % that have been sued - 58 % who believe those cases had merit - 13 % who believe they will be sued in their career - 69 % who practice 'defensive' medicine to prevent suits - 76 Remember that the survey includes young and old docs, full-time and part-time docs, and docs in low risk positions so the number. Therefore, the number of 58% will underestimate the risk for a long-careered, full-time physician. 80% of claims going to a trial are found without merit, yet avg defense for these cases is $24,699 Number of $1 million jury awards: 1990 1 in 50 2000 1 in 12 2003 1 in 2 Avg indemnity award up every year since 1995 and is outpacing inflation $150,011 in 1995 to $270,460 in 2000 for PCP 2002 average of the members of the PIAA is $500,000 2003 average according to AMA is $3.5 million 2001 #4 most successful litigation in monetary award was for medical malpractice Highest award thus far is $269 million awarded in Dallas, TX Also, as I pointed out earlier, the outcome of a lawsuit is directly tied to the demeanor of the physician and the extent of injury. The actual merits of the case are much less important.
Bronco-I'm not the one playing semantics. An investigation into a potential claim is no more a "lawsuit" than a police officer speaking to a witness when investigating a crime constitutes an "arrest and charge of a crime." The post to which I responded said 100% of doctors get sued. 40-60%, by no means equates to 100%. As for the myth that lawsuits are the cause of increased malpractice insurance rates - do some simple research. The facts are very readily available. Those facts are that lawsuit payouts constitute approximately 5% of the cost of insurance malpractice premiums. That is a drop in the bucket. FACT: Malpractice insurance premiums are directly tied to the losses insurance companies suffer on their investments. You see, the insurance company takes premiums, and invests, say, approximately 50-60% in the various markets. How do you think the insurance company makes up for any loss it suffers on their investments? By raising the doctor's malpractice insurance premiums. THAT is the primary cause of high malpractice insurance rates - and you will notice (and this is anecdotal, but I believe it to be consistently accurate) that the hue and cry for more tort reform because of high malpractice rates due to frivolous lawsuits ALWAYS follows a downturn in the market. Some interesting reading: Nation's Largest Medical Malpractice Insurer Declares Caps on Damages Don't Work In reply to:
people talking about there not being any caps on econ damages as some sort of big deal are cracking me up. that $$$ gets subrogated by the health insurance co. that originally footed those bills. qwithout debating the merits of that conceopt, i jsut wanted to note that: If there WERE caps on econ. damages, then the health insurance co.'s of the injured parties would shell out the $$$ on the claims, and then not get back the amount paid out. those insurance companies are the ones who benefit from this lack of cap. i do not think this is a bad thing (subrogation, etc), but you can not tout it as some important benefit still remaining for injured parties under the new laws. hilarious.
So what's wrong with an insurance company subrogating medical expenses it pays on behalf of its insured, if that person subsequently recovers them because his injuries were caused by the negligence of another?
^ ^ i don't think anything is wrong with that. that had nothing to do with the point of my post either.
TxSthorn- Again you are parsing words regarding what a "lawsuit" is but we can just disagree. I'm not involved in any way with insurance, but your understanding of the economics is simply terrible.
TMLT is not a for-profit company. It is the largest insurer in Texas. They were becoming more expensive before the cap and are becoming less expensive afterwards. I have little doubt that some insurance companies stick it to the physicians (and everyone else they can). There are surely some companies that do not lower their rates when awards are controlled. Fortunately, we live in Texas, where we have TMLT. Rates were rising during the investment-boom 90s and are dropping in the soft late '00s. It is about the caps. Of course, medical school faculties in Texas largely self-insure. They also tend to treat many of the most difficult medical problems in some of the socially most difficult patients. As self-insured state-owned (except Baylor) institutions, they necessarily pass along all realized relief from the caps directly into state-funded coffers.
TxSthorn- You accuse someone of having no credibility because of an offhand comment about how many doctors get sued. So what credibility do you have with your statements? Let's look at the most glaring ones: 1) "Those facts are that lawsuit payouts constitute approximately 5% of the cost of insurance malpractice premiums. That is a drop in the bucket"- I wasn't even sure of your point when you first posted this. Surely you are not suggesting (although I think you really are) that med mal insurers only spend 5% of their premiums on actual damages paid to claimants. You couldn't be that dense. Perhaps what is paid out in "lawsuits" is 5% but by your own arguments earlier lawsuits aren't claims. Have you ever heard of the concept that cases might be settled before a lawsuit is filed? Insurance companies have what is called a "combined ratio". This is the ratio of premium revenue versus all of direct operating costs of the company plus costs to adjudicate claims. The operating costs (generally called overhead) for typical insurance companies is around 30%. Claims costs make up the rest. The combined ratios of med mal carriers in Texas around 1999-2003 was running about 137%. This means that every $1 they took in in premium they spent $1.37. This is EXCLUSIVE of any investment gains or losses. The companies lost billions on the underwriting results only. Your 5% figure is so completely irrelevent to this discussion it makes me think you really haven't a clue what we are talking about. 2) "How do you think the insurance company makes up for any loss it suffers on their investments? By raising the doctor's malpractice insurance premiums. THAT is the primary cause of high malpractice insurance rates"- Investment income plays a role in profitibility of insurers but does not have anything to do with rate setting. Med mal carriers are heavily regulated by the state. For them to raise rates they must have it approved by the state and must show actual claim loss information to justify the rate increases or decreases. Investment revenue is not considered AT ALL in rate filings. The only criteria is the results of the underwriting. Further TMLT is by far the biggest writer of med mal in Texas (about 50% of the market). TMLT has had consistent investment INCOME of around $13M-$14M every year from 1998 to around 2004 or so. They have NEVER even come close to a loss on their investment portfolio. NEVER. Hell 85% of their invested assets are in low risk A rated bonds, another 10% or so in cash and about 5% in stocks. Their investment income plays ZERO role in their rates. (*I'm not good with links but all this financial data is available on TMLT's website.) 3) "And where is the massive amount of analytical evidence to the contrary?" The following is a press release from Texas' govt website: -TMLT has reduced rates five consecutive years since the passage of House Bill 4 and Proposition 12 in 2003: 12% in 2004; 5% in 2005; 5% in 2006; 7.5% in 2007; and 6.5% in 2008. The net effect of these cumulative rate reductions amounts to a 31% reduction from 2003 rates and approximately $200 million of premium savings.- From the same article TMLT has paid out close to $50 M in dividends to its stockholders who are mostly the doctors they insure. And guess what.... TMLT's investment rate of return has been LOWER the last 5 years than during the run up in rates from 1998-2003.
TMLT invests the vast majority of its assets in bonds, which are safe and not nearly as volatile as the type of investments that other insurance sectors play in. A federal GAO study came out a few years back showing that investment losses accounted for only about 15% of increases in med mal premiums. The other 85% was due to increased costs per claim.
Listen to bronco, people. He knows what he's talking about. btw, here's what happens when lawyers are asked to buy malpractice insurance: Sole practitioners and lawyers in small firms complain about the cost of malpractice insurance and argue that clients will be more inclined to file a malpractice claim if they know insurance coverage is there. "I believe it's fairly self-evident that any disclosure of carrying insurance is like painting a target on your back," said Charles Awalt, a Plano sole practitioner and a director of the State Bar's general practice, solo and small-firm section.
I also will go on record as being in favor, for sure not OPPOSING a mandatory malpractice law in Texas for attorneys in private practice. it would mean I would have to, but that would be fine.
You're missing the point. It's not about whether attorneys should be required to carry malpracitce insurance (for the record, I don't favor ANY mandatory insurance laws). It's about WHY they don't want to do it - because even lawyers know that merely having a deep pocket behind you makes you more susceptible to a lawsuit. Here's another quote from the link: ... Herring said he almost never takes a case from someone who wants to sue a lawyer who has no insurance. When he is on the other side, defending lawyers without insurance, Herring said, he almost always settles claims "for little or nothing, regardless of how seriously the lawyer damaged the client." ... Wasn't it amazing how quickly the "mold scare" evaporated once insurance companies weren't required to pay for the remediation?
But see, that's your biggest problem, Kyrie. It all truly boils down to this: As a scum-sucking ambulance chasing lawyer, you actually have the audacity to care about the individual citizens of the State of Texas. You actually feel the need to defend and crusade against crap like this when it happens (and it happens a LOT). The actual citizens of Texas, however, do not care about themselves, or each other anymore. They are far more concerned with the pocketbooks of the nursing home that killed these people, and the insurance company's profits that took the risk of insuring this nursing home by accepting premiums from them in the event that this very thing happened. (Granted, their minds will quickly change when it happens to them, or thier child, mother or father, or other loved one. But THEIR case is DIFFERENT. It isn;t frivolous like all the others) So quit your self-righteous complaining. And if your clients don't like it, they can just take it up to the Texas Supreme Court. Because everybody knows that they would never substitute their opinions for those of a jury (which was once purportedly forbidden under Texas law), and that the individual citizens of Texas definitely get the justice they deserve from them.
