Sunday, June 10, 2007
Pennsylvania Doctor Trap Number Two Proposed
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Pennsylvania has chosen an interesting strategy to keep doctors from leaving the state. Rather than fix the current jackpot medical malpractice system they've decided to try to trap doctors that are already here.
The first example of this was something called the MCARE abatement program. The Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act replaced an existing catastrophic coverage fund with a new fund to cover awards which exceeded the primary coverage provided by professional liability policies. Each physician must pay into the fund a percentage of their primary premium to sustain the fund.
The MCARE abatement program (or Health Care Provider Retention Program) provides some financial relief from paying premiums to the fund. How much relief a physician gets depends on the practitioners specialty. And here we come to trap number one. If you accept the abatement, you agree to practice in the state for the year in which you receive the abatement AND the next year. If you leave early, you have to pay back the full amount of the abatement.
The legislature is now working on trap number two--a physician loan forgiveness program. For a period of ten years, for every year a physician practices in Pennsylvania after completing training the state will pay off ten percent of their student loan debt. If they leave early (say, after five years), they have to pay the state back ALL of the money the state paid toward their loans.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Pennsylvania's Lawmakers Could Learn From Texas
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Texas enacted tort reform in 2003, capping damage awards at $250,000. In an article titled "Insurance companies, doctors flock to Texas" David Hendricks passes along some facts I hope Pennsylvania legislators take to heart:
- Malpractice insurance rates have fallen an average of 21%
- The number of companies offering malpractice insurance in the state has risen from four to thirty
- Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50%
- Doctors are coming to Texas, as evidenced by 2,250 pending applications for medical licensure
[Kevin, MD]
Thursday, June 7, 2007
At risk: vaccines - The Boston Globe
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
The Boston Globe
"Certainly there is plenty of evidence to refute the notion that vaccines cause autism. Fourteen epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of autism is the same whether children received the MMR vaccine or not, and five have shown that thimerosal-containing vaccines also do not cause autism. Further, although large quantities of mercury are clearly toxic to the brain, autism isn't a consequence of mercury poisoning; large, single-source mercury exposures in Minamata Bay and Iraq have caused seizures, mental retardation, and speech delay, but not autism.
Finally, vaccine makers removed thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to young infants about six years ago; if thimerosal were a cause, the incidence of autism should have declined. Instead, the numbers have continued to increase. All of this evidence should have caused a quick dismissal of these cases. But it didn't, and now the courthas turned into a circus. The federal and civil litigation will likely take years to sort out."
[Via PointofLaw.com]
Sunday, May 14, 2006
RangelMD on Tort Reform in Texas
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards in 2003. The debate there on whether these caps are good or have been responsible for the drop in new malpractice cases by 60%-80% continues.
"Obviously the need is to reduce legal costs, increase ease and access to the system, increase efficiency and speed of proceedings so that justified compensation finds its way to the plaintiff with all deliberate speed, and establish much more consistency in finding fault and awarding compensation. One solution is the establishment of special health courts where neutral expert witnesses would be hired by the court, judges or panels would hand down judgments, and guidelines would be in place for the determining of fault and compensation.
It's easy to see why trial lawyers oppose special health courts because their roles would be significantly reduced. A system like this would be far less susceptible to such intangibles as the fickle mood of a jury or the charisma of the lawyer. We've been talking for years about reducing costs and improving access to health care. Maybe it's about time we started doing the same with our tort system. Proposition 12 may have been the first small step in that direction."
[RangelMD]
Friday, May 27, 2005
Medical Malpractice Law in the United States - Kaiser Family Foundation
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Medical Malpractice Law in the United States - Kaiser Family Foundation:
" The Kaiser Family Foundation today issued a new report that explains how medical malpractice law in the United States works and provides an overview of recent trends and reform approaches. The Foundation also posted state-specific data on medical malpractice claim payments on statehealthfacts.org, the free online source of current health and health policy data for all 50 states. "
Monday, February 7, 2005
Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights News of State Medical Malpractice Developments
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Summarizes recent developments in tort reform in Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, North and South Carolina, and Wyoming.
[Via UK Medical News Today]
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
Tort System Costs
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
I'm posting these data mainly so I'll be able to find them again at a later date, but others might find the numbers useful as well.
" The tort system now costs every man, woman, and child in America an average of $845 a year, almost 10 times the inflation-adjusted $91 per capita it cost in 1950. The $246 billion-a-year total comes to 2.2 percent of America's gross domestic product -- more than triple the 0.6 percent in the United Kingdom and more than double the 0.8 percent in Japan, France, and Canada. And as of 2002, only 22 percent of all tort costs went to compensate alleged victims' out-of-pocket losses; 24 percent went to pay for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering; 19 percent went to plaintiffs' lawyers; 14 percent went to defense costs; and 21 percent went to insurance overhead. "
I found this section in Better Justice: Bush's Missed Opportunity, which is quoting U.S. Tort Costs:2004 Update Trends and Findings on the Cost of the U.S. Tort System.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Online Posting of Med-Mal Payouts Is Seen as Chilling Settlements
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Online Posting of Med-Mal Payouts Is Seen as Chilling Settlements:
" "Nearly five months after a [New Jersey] state government Web site began posting doctors' malpractice histories, the publicity may be having a chilling effect on settlements.
Lawyers on both sides of the aisle say that some doctors, faced with the reality that even a confidential settlement will end up on the Internet, are opting to take their chances in court.
They are exercising the right available under most medical malpractice policies to withhold their consent to settle, even when it goes against the wishes of their carriers and advice of counsel.
'Doctors do not want to settle at all now that it has to be reported to the databank for any payment whatsoever,' says defense lawyer Richard Amdur." "
[Via Point of Law]
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]
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]
| |
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 |
|
May Jul
|
