Insurance for delivering babies costs so much, the doctor can’t practice

[Monique]

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3660762&p1=0"

"malpractice premiums that soared from $12,000 in 2000 to $57,000 in 2003"

"Anything less than perfection is malpractice"


It is a shame..

 

[Monique]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660738/"

 

[Zero]

The lawsuit thing is a lie, Monique...or at least a misrepresentation. The actual payout on malpractice suits hase remained steady for years, yet insurance premiums keep going up. The insurance companies and the AMA are at fault, not the lawyers.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
The lawsuit thing is a lie, Monique...or at least a misrepresentation. The actual payout on malpractice suits hase remained steady for years, yet insurance premiums keep going up. The insurance companies and the AMA are at fault, not the lawyers.

Which lawsuit thing are you referring to?

The payout may be the same, but the reasons and the frequency with which people sue must be on the increase, a lot probably. This is why premiums are going up at the same time.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
Which lawsuit thing are you referring to?

The payout may be the same, but the reasons and the frequency with which people sue must be on the increase, a lot probably. This is why premiums are going up at the same time.

That doesn't follow at all; I'm including out-of-court settlements and court awards. Those totals have remained fairly consistent, so the costs to insurance companies haven't changed that much. Your statement " the reasons and the frequency with which people sue must be on the increase, a lot probably" doesn't match the facts. Further, caps on lawsuit payouts haven't affected insurance costs for the better: the five states with the highest insurance premiums all have strict lawsuit restrictions and awards caps. The insurance companies have raised rates with no conneection to higher costs due to lawsuits.

 

[Monique]

Yes, that could very well be.. that's why I said 'may' and 'probably' because I don't have the figures. So where would I go in search of those figures?

So insurance companies are then to blame.. but malpractice premiums soaring from $12,000 in 2000 to $57,000 in 2003 is really A LOT of money..

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
Yes, that could very well be.. that's why I said 'may' and 'probably' because I don't have the figures. So where would I go in search of those figures?

So insurance companies are then to blame.. but malpractice premiums soaring from $12,000 in 2000 to $57,000 in 2003 is really A LOT of money..

There is an artice in USA Today, March 5, 2003...not sure if it is archived online...also, the AMA has done some studies on it.

The premiums are rising because people like you believe that there are a lot of expensive lawsuits driving up prices; that simply isn't the case.

 

[Monique]

AMA?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
AMA?

American Medical Association

 

[Zero]

For instance, Florida has capped awards in lawsuits, but you can still pay over 200,000 in malpractice insurance every year.

 

[Zero]

BTW< the states that have the highest rates also have the highest rates of doctors who have been sued successfully five or more times. Losing a lawsuit once could be chalked up to some sort of legal problem; five or more losses would tend to imply that these are incompetent doctors, don't you think? Maybe instead of reforming the legal system, we need to reform state medical boards?

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW< the states that have the highest rates also have the highest rates of doctors who have been sued successfully five or more times. Losing a lawsuit once could be chalked up to some sort of legal problem; five or more losses would tend to imply that these are incompetent doctors, don't you think? Maybe instead of reforming the legal system, we need to reform state medical boards?

...or maybe BOTH need reform. A guy over here in the UK sued the council he rented his house from. He tried to change a light bulb in a tall stairway having first consumed 10 pints of beer. He fell and hurt himself and sued the council for placing the light fitting in 'an awkward place'.

He was held 50% to blame. I suppose if he had drank 20 pints of beer then, rather than 10, it might have been ALL his fault?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
...or maybe BOTH need reform. A guy over here in the UK sued the council he rented his house from. He tried to change a light bulb in a tall stairway having first consumed 10 pints of beer. He fell and hurt himself and sued the council for placing the light fitting in 'an awkward place'.

He was held 50% to blame. I suppose if he had drank 20 pints of beer then, rather than 10, it might have been ALL his fault?

Frivolous lawsuits are one thing: there is nothing in liability caps that addresses the problem.

 

[Adrian Baker]

We in the UK used to laugh at you 'stupid Americans all suing each other all the time'
We do it ourselves now though and it isn't funny any longer.

It does seem that it isn't possible to have an accident anymore, without it being someone elses fault. We all lose out in the end though, which I suppose is what Monique's point was.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
The premiums are rising because people like you believe that there are a lot of expensive lawsuits driving up prices; that simply isn't the case.

You don't live in Philadelphia, do you? Malpractice suits really are killing the medical field in Phila. And premiums don't rise because of public perception - insurance firms spend a lot of money playing with data to figure out what those premiums need to be for them to turn a profit.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Zero
For instance, Florida has capped awards in lawsuits, but you can still pay over 200,000 in malpractice insurance every year.

glad to see one state is taking some action on this...granted, some people truly deserve compesentation for wrong medical practices, but there are many who take advantage of this...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
glad to see one state is taking some action on this...granted, some people truly deserve compesentation for wrong medical practices, but there are many who take advantage of this...

Kerrie, you miss the point...caps don't affect insurance rates. California has done something, by reforming insurance companies, and leaving the lawyers alone.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You don't live in Philadelphia, do you? Malpractice suits really are killing the medical field in Phila. And premiums don't rise because of public perception - insurance firms spend a lot of money playing with data to figure out what those premiums need to be for them to turn a profit.

That's funny, Russ. You live in PA< and you don't even know what is going on in your5 own state?LOL(j/k, you don't know what is going on ANYWHERE when it comes to politics, do you? ) PA is #1 in DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED MORE THAN 5 TIMES FOR MALPRACTICE!. Let me ask you a question, Russ: do you think it is really lawyers' fault in all five(or more) cases?

Don't you believe in personal responsibility at all?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
PA is #1 in DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED MORE THAN 5 TIMES FOR MALPRACTICE!

Uhm, Zero? Don't you find it strange that this state has all the wrong doctors?

I think people are sueing for all the wrong reasons, what happened to that lady anyway who suid her doctor for marking her.. uterus I believe which was to be taken out with his initials?

I knew someone who was trying to start up his own biochem company and was sued 5 times in a few years for stupid reasons, just to make life difficult.

 

[Monique]

Actually, one of my dutch friends went to the US and got sued twice! In a year! They won't let you work even without liability insurance since the US is so notorious.

 

[Monique]

True or not, but the http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm" has this information:

There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995; 84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and 86,480 in 2000.
While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52 percent over that time.
Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low.
Malpractice insurance costs amount to only 3.2 percent of the average physician’s revenues.
Few medical errors ever result in legal claims. Only one malpractice claim is made for every 7.6 hospital injuries, according to a Harvard study. Further, plaintiffs drop 10 times more claims than they pursue, according to Physician Insurer Association of America data.

 

[Monique]

J. Robert Hunter wrote a letter to the president on the erroneous data released to the public:

http://www.consumerfed.org/MedicalMalpractice.html

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
Uhm, Zero? Don't you find it strange that this state has all the wrong doctors?

I think people are sueing for all the wrong reasons, what happened to that lady anyway who suid her doctor for marking her.. uterus I believe which was to be taken out with his initials?

I knew someone who was trying to start up his own biochem company and was sued 5 times in a few years for stupid reasons, just to make life difficult.

Come on now...do you guys really believe that peope are making up frivolous lawsuits as many times as that? Sounds like media-driven hysteria instead of relying on facts and reality. What i find is strange is that someone who is successfully sued five times is still practicing medicine, or that the AMA lobbied Congress to make sure that we (the public) never find out the names of doctors who have a history of malpractice.

You know, if we were talking about criminals of the usual stripe claiming to be innocent, we would trust the judicial system...but if they are an incompetent doctor, we trust him over the patients and medical experts who testified against him in court? You know what I wonder? I wonder if our need to trust a doctor with our lives is tied into the refusal to accept that some doctors need to be sued, actually need to stop practicing medicine.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
What i find is strange is that someone who is successfully sued five times is still practicing medicine, or that the AMA lobbied Congress to make sure that we (the public) never find out the names of doctors who have a history of malpractice.

You know, doctors are human and mistakes can be made. In stead of making a dime out of them, distracting them even more from what they should be doing, try to make the system foolproof.

People are starting to think it is their right to sue, and forget that we live in the real world. My mom, she gave me a ride to the doctors office and when she walked into the building, she fell right into a gaping hole in the floor. Apparently some handymen had been doing some underground repair and the one who was supposed to warn visitors, had walked over to the receptionist for a second. The result? A gaping wound in my moms lower leg. Affortunately we were in the doctors office so a compress could be made quickly since it was bleeding awfully hard. We went to the hospital and she got lots of stiches, underskin and the skin self. Did we sue the handymen for €xxx.xxx,xxx? No, they came over at our house with a bouquet of flowers and we served them tea with a cookie. Where is the humanity for sueing their shirt off their bodies?

IMPORTANT:
If people are really that concerned with medical malpractice, why don't they complain to the medical board and have the doctor's license revoked? Instead of going to court and get all the cash they want after which they live happily ever after..

 

[Monique]

On making the system foolproof. Why are all the errors made? Probably because of illegible handwritings, counting errors, giving the same medicine twice, not communicating with other doctors who are treating the same patient for a different ailment.

They are starting now with special barcodes which track the dose and medicine a patient is receiving in a hospital. They are also working on automating prescription drug pharmacies, where a doctor types in the drug at his computer, a machine at the pharmacy will take the correct medicine out of the rack and put the appropriate dose and label on the bottle.

 

[Zero]

You know what, though, Monique? Money is the only thing that will deter people in a free market. Doctors make too much money to stop just because they kill or main a few people, so you have to shut them down financially. Plus, if you lose the ability to work, through medical incompetence, shouldn't the doctor pay for it?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
That's funny, Russ. You live in PA< and you don't even know what is going on in your5 own state?LOL(j/k, you don't know what is going on ANYWHERE when it comes to politics, do you? ) PA is #1 in DOCTORS WHO HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED MORE THAN 5 TIMES FOR MALPRACTICE!. Let me ask you a question, Russ: do you think it is really lawyers' fault in all five(or more) cases?

Don't you believe in personal responsibility at all?

Well, to keep with the condescending tone...

Zero, do you know anything about statistics? Have you checked the RATE at which doctors are successfully sued? The fact that doctors are sued successfully more often in PA is a result of the fact that they are sued more often. Could there also be a correlation between that and the unusully high number of lawyers in Phila?

This is kinda related to the thread about misunderstanding statistics...

Come on now...do you guys really believe that peope are making up frivolous lawsuits as many times as that? Sounds like media-driven hysteria instead of relying on facts and reality. What i find is strange is that someone who is successfully sued five times is still practicing medicine, or that the AMA lobbied Congress to make sure that we (the public) never find out the names of doctors who have a history of malpractice.

Zero, it floors me that you don't see the connection here:

-The US has the among best medical treatment in the world.
-The US also has the among most lawyers and lawsuits (for all purposes) in the world.
-The US has among the most malpractice lawsuits in the world.

Make the connection.

 

[Zero]

No link whatsoever to doctors making mistakes, huh? Really? People just walk into a courthouse, make a claim, and someone hands them huge piles of money for no reason? LOL...ok, Russ, carry on.

The reality is this: insurance prices went down in the 1990s due to competition and a strong economy. Republican deregulation has hindered competition, and the downturn of the stock market has cost insurance companies billions. Hence, the increase in premiums. I know you dislike me personally, but look at the stats that Monique posted, and deal with that.

 

[adrenaline]

Statistically, the doctors with the most lawsuits against them are the best of the best...let's look at neurosurgeons. On whole, the average neurosurgeon in private practice has at anyone time two lawsuits filed against him. On average, a neurosurgeon on teaching faculty at any of the prestigious teaching medical schools have five. This is due to the sheer volume of difficult cases that those in the academic fields encounter as well as the fact that these facilities are in big city environments, where there are also greater numbers of lawyers as well. To say that the most incompentant are the ones that have the most lawsuits filed against them is to conclude that the medical schools are going to nominate the most incompentant neurosurgeons to teach at their facility. This holds true for all fields of medicine...everyone at our medical school from the nephrologists to the cardiologists probably all have higher than average suits due to the volume of referrals and difficult cases that come through here.

Mississippi has no obstretricians that are insured. Patients have to sign a waiver that they will not sue or they must leave the state to deliver their baby. In West Virginia, there are no cardiologists, a yearly premium is higher than any yearly salary, if you have a heart attack, you hope you get a good internist and then get shipped out of state. As Zero commented, the fault is not all the insurance or the malpractice settlements. To be honest, the rates suddenly jacked up because St. Paul, the largest supplier of malpractice coverage decided that it was not profitable to be in the malpractice business anymore and abandoned thousands of doctors who suddenly had to scrabble for coverage and smaller insurance companies did not have the assetts to cover such a huge influx under their umbrella of liability without charging such high premiums. In addition, the stock market downturn after septemeber 11th also bought down their profits and these smaller malpractice companies were hurting for business. Georgia is facing such a crisis soon and if we don't change things soon, already our surgeons are leaving in droves to other states that have had liablitiy refroms such as south carolina, california, colorado etc.


And remember, jury trials successfully sue doctors because many do not understand the complexity of a disease and how bad things can happen because of a person's disease state and not a doctor's negligence. A doctor is probably the only person in the american court system not tried by a jury of his or her peers. (Not allowed to even have a phlebotemist on the jury, nurse, xray tech etc.) For example, A vascular surgeon colleague successfully repaired a abdominal aneurysm in a 44 yr old,smoking alcoholic. She left the hospital against medical advice (was withdrawing and wanted a drink), came back in the ER in shock, he was in emergency surgery 20 minutes down the road at a neighboring hospital and finished up as fast as he could, and gave verbal orders to have fluids and blood given to stabilize her in the er until he got her to the operating room. He repaired an internal leak but she had suffered enough prolonged hypotension she was rendered a paraplegic. The jury felt sympathetic for the 44 yr old young woman and awarded her the trial. They stated he was negligent in not responding to her quickly enough ( even though he was in emergency surgery and they felt that it was not her leaving the hospital for 24 hours and binge drinking that may have caused some internal bleeding rather it was his initial incompetant repair job!) (She had a high blood alcohol content by the way ...he was smart enough to document that.) This was a case where the jury was just sympathetic towards the 44 yr old woman (apparently 4 people on the jury felt the doctor did nothing wrong but voted against him just because they felt it wasn't going to hurt to give the young woman the money anyway!)Oh the ignorance.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No link whatsoever to doctors making mistakes, huh? Really? People just walk into a courthouse, make a claim, and someone hands them huge piles of money for no reason? LOL...ok, Russ, carry on.

Maybe we need an analogy. Ever watch baseball? Are hitters rated according to total hits or average rate of hits?

but look at the stats that Monique posted, and deal with that.

[?] [?] You called the stats a lie. That indicates to me that you actually DO understand what they mean but for some reason refuse to accept them.