The Bush Administration's Malpractice Misdiagnosis

[Guest guest]

Re-examining the framework of the Medical Liability crisis...

Interesting to compare the two articles back to back, isn't it?

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

The Bush Administration's Malpractice Misdiagnosis

from Ralph Nader's Organization www.citizen.org

 

• Go To Public Citizen's Medical Malpractice Homepage •

 

President Bush has endorsed a " framework for addressing the medical

liability crisis " with six elements. The written outline released by

the White House on January 16 lacks specificity, but in his speech

he endorsed legislation from the last Congress, H.R. 4600. That bill

shows the proposal to be a framework of unfairness. President Bush

would:

 

Cap " non-economic " damages. Awards for so-called " non-economic " loss

(injuries such as lost child-bearing ability, disfigurement, and

paralysis) compensate for the human suffering caused by medical

negligence and defective medical products. Typically, such damages

exceed $250,000 only in cases involving permanent significant

injuries. Thus, the cap will not affect patients with minor

injuries; instead, it targets only victims of injuries such as

deafness, blindness, loss of limb or organ, paraplegia, or severe

brain damage. To understand the arbitrariness of the cap, consider:

A 20-year old plaintiff left paralyzed by a negligent surgeon would

expect to live another 56 years. The cap would entitle him to just

$12.20 in damages for pain and suffering for each day of the rest of

his life.

 

Restrict punitive damages. Punitive damages are rarely awarded in

medical malpractice cases, but the threat of punitive damages is

important to deterring reckless disregard for patient safety by

doctors, hospitals, HMOs, nursing homes, and drug and medical device

manufacturers. H.R. 4600, the bill the Bush Administration endorsed

last year, would have rewarded these special interests with a

benefit that even the conservative 104th Congress rejected—a

complete ban on punitive damages for reckless conduct.

 

Deny collateral source benefits to plaintiffs. Collateral source

benefits are benefits paid by the plaintiff's health or disability

insurance and programs such as Social Security Disability that are

funded by payroll taxes. Everyone knows that the premiums for these

benefits are effectively paid by employees through reduced salaries

and wages—yet the Bush proposal would strip these benefits from a

worker and transfer them to the defendant.

 

Let defendants control payouts for future damages. By instituting

a " periodic payment rule " for future damages, the Bush proposal

would allow defendants and insurance companies to string out

payments for future damages over the life expectancy of the victim,

rather than make them pay up front. This is money the jury has

determined rightfully belongs to the plaintiff, yet defendants and

insurers would be able to invest and earn interest on the vast

majority of a plaintiff's damage award. Victims would be left to

cope with unexpected needs or changing medical costs and increased

transportation and housing costs.

 

Shorten the statute of limitations to one year after discovery of

the injury. This severe limitation would extinguish many meritorious

claims. Although in most cases an injury is immediately apparent, a

victim may not know until much later whether the injury was caused

by malpractice. The law in most states starts the limitation period

running from the discovery of the malpractice, not discovery of the

injury.

 

Leave patients holding the bag when a doctor is insolvent. The

doctrine of joint and several liability says that when two

defendants, such as a doctor and a hospital, are both found liable

for negligence, a plaintiff may collect the entire award from either

of them if necessary. President Bush would change this rule, and

leave patients with no recovery for the share of damages assigned to

an uninsured, underinsured, or bankrupt defendant.

 

Let drug companies off the hook? Although the Bush proposal does not

specifically mention it, the House Legislation he endorsed (H.R.

4600) would not only protect doctors from liability. It also would

protect other special interests, including hospitals, HMOs, nursing

homes, and drug and medical device manufacturers.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Misty.

 

Only in a country where the federal government has been purchased by the

largest monetary lobby (each year for the last 100 years) could something

like this be seriously proposed by the administration. Only with a monopoly

could there be enough political clout to even dare to push it.

 

Dr Benjamin Rush (cosigner of the US constitution) had it right!

 

Namaste`

 

Walt

 

-

<mistytrepke

 

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:02 AM

The Bush Administration's Malpractice

Misdiagnosis

 

 

Re-examining the framework of the Medical Liability crisis...

Interesting to compare the two articles back to back, isn't it?

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

The Bush Administration's Malpractice Misdiagnosis

from Ralph Nader's Organization www.citizen.org

 

.. Go To Public Citizen's Medical Malpractice Homepage .

 

President Bush has endorsed a " framework for addressing the medical

liability crisis " with six elements. The written outline released by

the White House on January 16 lacks specificity, but in his speech

he endorsed legislation from the last Congress, H.R. 4600. That bill

shows the proposal to be a framework of unfairness. President Bush

would:

 

Cap " non-economic " damages. Awards for so-called " non-economic " loss

(injuries such as lost child-bearing ability, disfigurement, and

paralysis) compensate for the human suffering caused by medical

negligence and defective medical products. Typically, such damages

exceed $250,000 only in cases involving permanent significant

injuries. Thus, the cap will not affect patients with minor

injuries; instead, it targets only victims of injuries such as

deafness, blindness, loss of limb or organ, paraplegia, or severe

brain damage. To understand the arbitrariness of the cap, consider:

A 20-year old plaintiff left paralyzed by a negligent surgeon would

expect to live another 56 years. The cap would entitle him to just

$12.20 in damages for pain and suffering for each day of the rest of

his life.

 

Restrict punitive damages. Punitive damages are rarely awarded in

medical malpractice cases, but the threat of punitive damages is

important to deterring reckless disregard for patient safety by

doctors, hospitals, HMOs, nursing homes, and drug and medical device

manufacturers. H.R. 4600, the bill the Bush Administration endorsed

last year, would have rewarded these special interests with a

benefit that even the conservative 104th Congress rejected-a

complete ban on punitive damages for reckless conduct.

 

Deny collateral source benefits to plaintiffs. Collateral source

benefits are benefits paid by the plaintiff's health or disability

insurance and programs such as Social Security Disability that are

funded by payroll taxes. Everyone knows that the premiums for these

benefits are effectively paid by employees through reduced salaries

and wages-yet the Bush proposal would strip these benefits from a

worker and transfer them to the defendant.

 

Let defendants control payouts for future damages. By instituting

a " periodic payment rule " for future damages, the Bush proposal

would allow defendants and insurance companies to string out

payments for future damages over the life expectancy of the victim,

rather than make them pay up front. This is money the jury has

determined rightfully belongs to the plaintiff, yet defendants and

insurers would be able to invest and earn interest on the vast

majority of a plaintiff's damage award. Victims would be left to

cope with unexpected needs or changing medical costs and increased

transportation and housing costs.

 

Shorten the statute of limitations to one year after discovery of

the injury. This severe limitation would extinguish many meritorious

claims. Although in most cases an injury is immediately apparent, a

victim may not know until much later whether the injury was caused

by malpractice. The law in most states starts the limitation period

running from the discovery of the malpractice, not discovery of the

injury.

 

Leave patients holding the bag when a doctor is insolvent. The

doctrine of joint and several liability says that when two

defendants, such as a doctor and a hospital, are both found liable

for negligence, a plaintiff may collect the entire award from either

of them if necessary. President Bush would change this rule, and

leave patients with no recovery for the share of damages assigned to

an uninsured, underinsured, or bankrupt defendant.

 

Let drug companies off the hook? Although the Bush proposal does not

specifically mention it, the House Legislation he endorsed (H.R.

4600) would not only protect doctors from liability. It also would

protect other special interests, including hospitals, HMOs, nursing

homes, and drug and medical device manufacturers.