Saturday, December 18, 2004
Pennsylvania and Medical Courts
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
From Law.com: States Weigh Med-Mal Courts.
" "In Pennsylvania, a House bill was introduced in 2003 that would have created a Medical Professional Liability Court. The bill never made it out of committee.
"It was the source of a lot of discussions for the greater part of four or five months," said Mark Phenicie, the legislative counsel for the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. "But it hasn't happened ... .We have the additional impediment here that all of the judges are elected. If I'm a judge, I probably wouldn't want to have to run in a partisan statewide campaign just to be in a malpractice court." " "
Like other malpractice reform proposals, it never made it 'out of committee' because legislators from the Philadelphia area (who represent the trial lawyer lobby) prevented it from going to the floor for a vote.
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Thursday, December 9, 2004
Unreliable System Fails Doctors and Patients
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
" "The Washington Post takes a detailed look at a single medical malpractice case--one that began when Dr. Kevin Kearney of Maryland's Eastern Shore urged an 18-year-old mother to have her baby without a Caesarean section. What followed was a complicated delivery resulting in permanent injuries to the child, and a multi-year legal battle, filled with dramatic moments that illustrate how an unreliable system can fail both doctors and patients." "
[Via MedWatch]
Friday, November 19, 2004
"Dispelling malpractice myths"
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
"Dispelling malpractice myths" by the president of Johns Hopkins University:
""News reports of recent efforts to reduce malpractice insurance costs have missed what is needed: genuine reform of the medical justice system.
A good way to start is by jettisoning some commonly held misperceptions about the current malpractice system. Call them the "Myths of Malpractice..."""
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Saturday, November 6, 2004
Summary of Medical Liability Ballot Initiatives
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Human Events Online: Medical Liability
""Voters in four states--Oregon, Florida, Nevada, and Wyoming--considered ballot initiatives to reform the broken medical liability systems in their states. In Oregon, Ballot Measure 35, which would have amended the constitution to establish a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical liability cases, lost by 50.53% to 49.47%. In Florida, Ballot Measure 3 to amend the state constitution and limit contingency fees attorneys receive in medical liability cases passed 63.5% to 36.5%. In Nevada, Ballot Measure 3, which would amend Nevada's existing medical liability reform law by deleting exceptions to the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases, passed by 58.72% to 40.14%. In Wyoming, Amendment D, which would amend to the Constitution to allow the state legislature to enact caps on noneconomic damages, failed by a 2-to-1 margin.""
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Ballot measure results
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Ballot measure results:
""...voters gave doctors and the business community some major victories in yesterday's ballot measures. Limits on malpractice lawyers' fees passed resoundingly in Florida, in a stinging rebuke to the trial bar. Among three other states considering med-mal ballot measures, doctors won decisively in Nevada and lost in Wyoming, while Oregon's measure was slightly trailing but too close to call..""
[Via Overlawyered]
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Wyoming med-mal study
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Wyoming med-mal study:
""The Milliman actuarial firm projects what will happen if Wyoming enacts a cap on non-economic damages. According to Martin Grace's summary [pdf], the study's simulation model "suggests that the cap [at a level of $250,000] will reduce losses and loss adjustmen expenses by about 15%""
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Monday, October 25, 2004
New site: Legal Reform Now
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
New site: Legal Reform Now
""LegalReformNow.com, a new website on legal reform, was launched today. The site is managed by the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), an arm of the United States Chamber of Commerce committed to tort reform at the state and federal level. LegalReformNow.com is intended as a "clearinghouse for legal reform information on the Web sponsored by a diverse coalition of associations, chambers of commerce, think tanks and state-based legal reform groups."""
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Heal the Law, Then Health Care
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
I'm reading more about Expert Medical Courts. Although my initial reaction is to avoid the creation of a new expert medical court beurocracy, I'm beginning to see the necessity of it.
Heal the Law, Then Health Care
Troyen A. Brennan and Philip K. Howard
The Washington Post, January 25, 2004
""What's missing from the current debate is any discussion of how the legal system should work in health care. Law is not some sort of sacred mandate but a tool to serve the common good. Asking how law can best serve health care leads to an unavoidable conclusion: A system of justice must be created that makes deliberate judgments -- reliable for patients and providers alike -- with improved patient care as the primary goal.""
Friday, October 22, 2004
Medical Economics - Malpractice: Who should judge the experts?
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Medical Economics - Malpractice: Who should judge the experts?:
" "Doctors who serve as expert witnesses for malpractice plaintiffs are finding themselves threatened by their state and specialty societies." "
and
" "...last May, the Federation of State Medical Boards adopted a resolution defining "false, fraudulent or deceptive" expert witness testimony by a physician as "unprofessional conduct." "
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The John Edwards Fan Club
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
" "Why, I asked, should we carry a $100,000 medical school debt, stay in school for 8 to 12 years, work long hours during and after residency, and fight the bloated bureaucracy of the health care system, when we can get rich quickly by following John Edwards? So here is what I proposed. We physicians should take turns suing one another..." "
[Via Point Of Law Forum]
Common Good: Expert Medical Courts: An Idea Whose Time has Come
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Common Good: Expert Medical Courts: An Idea Whose Time has Come:
""A recent editorial by Dr. Charles Lockwood, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Yale University School of Medicine, endorses Common Good's proposal to create special health courts and calls on doctors to "rally behind [the proposal] by joining and supporting Common Good."
Lockwood lists six key benefits that a health court would produce, including "consistent judgments on standards of care by court appointed experts; accountability for negligent and reckless providers; and powerful incentives for quality improvement in medical systems." "
Here's my litmus test for this one. Let's ask John Edwards if he thinks it's a good idea. If no, I'm for it. If yes, I'm against it
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9
|
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24
|
25 |
|
26
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
Nov Feb
|
