The Healthcare Problem

Re: Dr. charges. Medicare is price controlled. The government sets the rate by procedure. The only flexibility that the Dr. has is he can charge a maximum of 15% over the prescribed rate. Most do not. In addition the insurance companies also negotiate rates with hospitals. In 1992 I was operated on for cancer and while in hospital I had a heart attack. Spent 14 days in hospital and ended up with a bill for $72.000. The insurance company paid only $42.000. Note I was not on Medicare at the time.

Sofia~ Look at who is contributing to George Bush's campaign! Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies! Do you really think that while they are slipping $'s in his pocket that he isn't gonna take care of them? The best thing that can be done to remedy this little problem is flush Washington of all these powerful lobbiests. Lobbiests don't have our best interests at hart. They have their best interests at hart.

While you are complaining about the trial lawyers just think of yourself or your child or mother or father in a situation where a doctor has screwed their quality of life. Maybe they will need round the clock care for the rest of their lives. How are you going to put a price on that? I agree that some of these awards are a little over the top but to place a very restrictive cap on the amount that a patient can receive for injuries sustained while under the care of a qualified physician is just plain crazy. Forgive me for suggesting that maybe a group of unbiased doctors and lawyers can be formed to review cases before they are able to go to court to check their validity. Of course I could be a little naive in my thinking. I don't quite understand all of the inner workings of this system.

Tort reform is badly needed and not only for medical malpractice. Imagine being awarded $2 million dollars for spilling hot coffee in your lap. There must be laws to control our litigious society.Juries should not be empowered to make the award decision.

Maybe so, au, but I don't buy the argument that it is needed inorder to bring insurance premiums down. I think that is bs dished out by the insurance companies. In fact, I don't think tort reform would have any effect whatsoever on premiums.

D.C. Malpractice Insurer Feels Squeeze

By Dina ElBoghdady
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 6, 2004; Page E01



James H. Blume Jr., a West Virginia physician, received an all-too-familiar message from his medical malpractice insurance carrier in January: Your policy has been canceled.

The letter marked the third time in four years that an insurance carrier bailed on him. The first one went bankrupt. Another pulled out of West Virginia all together. And in January, Washington-based NCRIC Inc. said it wanted out of the state as well.
"A lot of people are trying to paint [NCRIC] out to be the bad guys but I don't think so," said Blume, who opened a family practice in the tiny community of Forest Hill 13 years ago. "They thought they could not make money in this market, so they want to leave. Who can blame them?"

NCRIC's decision put the company in the middle of a heated debate on the affordability and availability of medical liability insurance in West Virginia. Last month, NCRIC decided to stay in West Virginia after state insurance officials agreed to let it raise the fees charged to doctors for coverage.

Across the country, states are struggling with similar issues. In Maryland, a request by the state's largest malpractice insurer, Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland, to raise premiums an average of 41 percent has triggered a fierce debate. Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D) called for the General Assembly to hold a special session this fall on rising costs. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has set up a task force onthe issue.

Several thousand Virginia physicians marched on the state Capitol in February, calling for tougher caps on "pain and suffering" awards and stiff limits on plaintiff lawyers fees. And D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) has advocated changes in the District's medical malpractice laws, which have no caps on damages against doctors or hospitals.

Malpractice carriers argue that high jury awards mean premiums don't cover claims. NCRIC said it paid out $1.07 in claims for every $1 it got in premiums last year.

An obvious quick fix for the industry: raise premiums, which is what NCRIC and its competitors have done. But that, according to the American Medical Association, has resulted in a liability crisis in 20 states and "problem signs" in Virginia, Maryland and the District.

The medical community cites anecdotes about doctors dropping "risky" procedures, such as delivering babies, or practicing without insurance, as doctors at Prince George's Hospital Center sought to do.

Who is to blame?




story

I think this view is a misunderstanding of most tort reform proposals. In a few proposals the total award is fully capped but in most the only thing that is capped are the punative awards. The person can still claim any documented expenses. If they require 24 hour nursing care for the rest of their lives and it's going to cost $50 billion they can still be awarded that plus they can get awarded compensation for any job/earnings they may lose as a result of the malpractice. What gets capped are awards above and beyond the actual expenses/losses.

fishin', I was speaking directly to Sofia's proposal. I haven't heard the specific details of any others so I reserve my judgment for them until I have more information. I'm not entirely against tort reform, I just don't believe it is the solution to our healthcare problem.

Some interesting reading here.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php



And here. http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses.pdf Don't know about the political persuasion of the sites but nothing stood out as biased.