My Medical Malpractice Insurance

December 31, 2009

Happy New Year from My Medical Malpractice Insurance .com

Filed under: Medical Malpractice Insurance — admin @ 8:32 am

We hear at MyMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.com want to wish all our loyal readers a Happy and Safe New Year. We promise that in 2010, we will continue to bring you the latest medical liability insurance news in all 50 states.

This past year saw a lot of back and forth in regards to the med mal climate across the nation. Would President Obama address the growing problem in this country? Would Congress try and tackle it? We hope that continued support for lowering malpractice insurance premiums will lead to greater access for patients……we have seen too often areas across the nation not having physicians with specialties b/c of the cost of their med-mal policies.

Happy New Year! See you in 2010. As always….if you would like a free indication on your medical malpractice insurance, click the link!

Sincerely,
The Editors
–ed

December 28, 2009

Missouri bill would regulate docs’ malpractice insurance premiums

side note: I don’t know if this would be a very effective plan. Medical malpr5actice insurance premiums are already tied to the county in which a physician practices.

A rural Missouri legislator wants to tie medical malpractice insurance rates to malpractice judgments in the county where a health care provider practices.

Rep. J.C. Kuessner, D-Eminence and assistant minority floor leader, has pre-filed a bill he said aims to reduce malpractice insurance premiums in rural counties and give health care providers an incentive to work in such counties.

He acknowledged that the plan might drive up premiums in more heavily populated counties, such as Jackson County.

“That would be a possibility because (rural) physicians are supplementing those larger cities,” he said.

see original

December 23, 2009

Medical negligence damage caps in Texas benefit only doctors, medical malpractice insurers

side note: There is no arguing that the Texas model of tort reform has not lowered medical malpractice insurance premiums. The question this author brings up is, “Who has been the prime beneficiary of the tort reforms? Because it isn’t the healthcare consumer.”

While limits on damages awarded to victims of medical negligence in Texas have been touted as a model for America, a study by the watchdog group Public Citizen shows Texas’ damage caps aren’t providing benefits to consumers. According to the report:

The only improvement in Texas since 2003 has been a decline in doctors’ liability insurance premiums. But payments by liability insurers on behalf of doctors have dropped far more than doctors’ premiums. This suggests that insurers are pocketing more of the savings than they are passing to doctors.

There is no evidence that any of the savings has been passed on to patients or taxpayers more generally. (emphasis added) The data suggest that Texas liability “reform” is just a giveaway to liability insurers and, to a lesser extent, doctors.

The potential for large damage awards to victims of medical negligence is thought to lead to “unnecessary” testing and lab work, which supposedly would give doctors a better chance to defend themselves from allegations of malpractice.
(more…)

Arizona toughens burden of proof in medical malpractice cases

side note: According to this article, the new Arizona law that makes it more difficult to sue for medical malpractice has been quite effective. Will it pass constitutional appeals?

An Arizona medical malpractice reform bill, which was signed into law last summer and went into effect recently, makes it harder for patients to sue hospitals, emergency room physicians, on-call specialists, and other hospital personnel involved in providing emergency treatment.

Senate Bill 1018 raised the burden of proof required by plaintiffs to sue health care practitioners. Under the new law, plaintiffs will have to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that the health care provider committed negligence. “Clear and convincing” evidence is the highest legal standard of proof required in a civil case, and is not easy to prove. Previously, plaintiffs only had to prove by a “preponderance of evidence” that negligence had been committed. “Preponderance of evidence” means that the evidence shows that it was more likely than not that the medical professional’s acts or omissions violated the accepted standard of medical care and caused the patient’s injury. This standard is considerably easier to prove than clear and convincing evidence.
(more…)

December 15, 2009

Ohio case could increase physician liability risk

side note: This could be real band for Ohio’s medical liability insurance rates.

A case pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio has the potential to expand the liability risk for physicians in the state.

The high court will decide whether patients can sue for additional damages in medical liability claims if they had more than a 50% chance of recovery before the alleged negligence.

Physicians are concerned that the case will encourage more litigation and give plaintiffs an avenue for recovering damages, even if the underlying negligence claim is unsuccessful, according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed in October by the Ohio State Medical Assn., the Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies, and other physician and hospital organizations.

At this article’s deadline, oral arguments in Geesaman v. St. Rita’s Medical Center had not been scheduled.

see original

New Jersey Bill would limit rate hikes for medical malpractice insurance

side note: Here is a state-level attempt at reigning in medical malpractice insurance rate hikes.

Bill would limit rate hikes for medical malpractice insurance

TRENTON – The Senate Commerce Committee today approved a bill to limit how much medical-malpractice insurance rates can increase year to year.

The legislation (S2934/A4245) requires the Department of Banking and Insurance to designate a range for medical malpractice liability insurance rate changes — increases or decreases — of between 5 percent and 15 percent.

“Rate increases are sometimes an inevitability, especially when malpractice liability insurance providers have to balance risk assessments for various medical specialties,” said Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), one of the bill’s sponsors. “While many health care professionals wouldn’t disagree with common-sense rate increases as part of the cost of business, malpractice liability insurance rates seem to be dictated by anything but common sense. If the rate increase is appropriate, it would continue to pass muster with DOBI regulators, but something has to be done to begin to rein in out-of-control malpractice liability insurance costs.”

Co-sponsored by Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), the bill also would give the insurance department responsibility for the deciding applicable categories, subcategories, specialties and subspecialties of health care providers.

The legislation would allow the department to approve rate changes that exceed the range limits, and it would remove a provision that considers annual premiums above $10,000 a “special risk” and subject to an alternate route rate.
(more…)

December 14, 2009

Lobbyist details health care bill’s sticking points

side note: Unfortunately — for both sides — this lobbyist seems to know of what he speaks.

A lobbyist close to the battles over federal health care reform predicted a bill will be passed by Congress, but not before Christmas.

Michael P. Strazzella, vice president for federal relations for the Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania in Washington, D.C., outlined for local business leaders Friday some of the sticking points of legislation.

President Barack Obama’s reform measures, he told those gathered for the Pennsylvania Economy League luncheon at the city Holiday Inn, really have not changed dramatically since he first considered expanding insurance coverage for more Americans.

Among the principal elements are to reduce long-term growth of costs for businesses and government, protect families from debt, guarantee choice of doctors and health care plans, improve patient safety, assure affordable insurance, maintain coverage for those who lose jobs and end barriers for insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.

Debate has focused on how best to accomplish some of the goals, particularly with respect to meeting the estimated $900 billion price tag for the reform measure.

“People believe we need something and that the (current) system is in trouble,” he said.

According to a Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll, 54 percent of voters believe major changes are needed, while 45 percent disagree.

About 61 percent of voters say it’s important to pass legislation this year. However, voters by a margin 2 to 1 prefer smaller reforms that address specific problems as opposed to a comprehensive overhaul of the system.

And yet, he noted that Americans are divided about how well U.S. health care sizes up against those in other industrialized nations.

About one in three people feel the U.S. system is above average. Similar proportions of individuals believe it is average or below average.

Various camps are divided with regard to what a reform package should cover.

For example, he said, liberal Democrats favor universal coverage, increased regulation of the insurance industry, generous subsidies to low-income people and a public option.

Conservative Democrats favor protection of small businesses and a public option that negotiates rates with providers, while Republicans favor tax credits for health insurance purchases and medical malpractice caps.

The U.S. House approved a reform measure Nov. 7, but the Senate now is debating its own version.

Upon passage by both chambers, a conference committee will try to hammer out an agreement reconciling differences between the two bills.

A final bill will be developed by the committee before being passed by each chamber of Congress.

Strazzella said Obama would like to have a bill in place by his January state of the union address.

Among the critical issues that have emerged in the debate are the public plan option, level of financing, access to coverage for undocumented individuals and financing.

The abortion issue, he noted, has emerged as “the poison pill” in the debate.

He said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s push to include financing for abortion probably did more to reignite opponents of legal abortion than anything.

Anti-abortion Democrats forced Pelosi to accept restrictions as part of passing the health care bill last month.

The language passed by the House would forbid any health plan receiving federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life.

He said eventually health care reform will require Obama to do more than meet with lawmakers behind closed doors. Instead, the president may well have to go on the road to sell his plan.

see original

December 10, 2009

Pa. woman sues over drink-fueled leg amputations

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 9:28 am

side note: This is just such a bizarre case, I thought I would share.

UNIONTOWN, Pa.—A western Pennsylvania woman who drank herself unconscious celebrating her 20th birthday says a hospital didn’t properly treat her resulting in partial amputations of both of her legs.

Shanna Hiles’ medical malpractice suit against Uniontown Hospital and one of its emergency physicians says she passed out while sitting on the floor with her legs tucked under her in May. Hiles was in that position for more than 12 hours, and she claims hospital officials didn’t properly diagnose her condition and work to restore circulation to her legs.

Instead, Hiles claims she was transferred to a Pittsburgh hospital several hours later where both legs were amputated at the knee.

A hospital spokeswoman has declined comment on the suit filed Tuesday.

see original

December 8, 2009

Graham, Chambliss seek to address medical malpractice with “Loser Pays” amendment

WASHINGTON — United States Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) last week introduced their ‘Loser Pays’ legislation as an amendment to the health care bill. The amendment would decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits that increase the cost of medical care for all Americans.

“Reform of medical malpractice is one of the key, missing ingredients from the health care reform proposals being debated in Congress,” said Senator Graham “A ‘Loser Pays’ system is one of the best devices available to prevent frivolous lawsuits from costing all of us. When both parties in a lawsuit are subject to financial penalty, people think longer and harder about bringing a questionable case forward. Most western nations already have a ‘Loser Pays’ rule, and it is time our own country adopts this concept. The Senate debate on health care is among the most important debates we have had. I hope we have a chance to vote on our important amendment.”

“Necessary for any reform proposal to our nation’s health care system is the inclusion of a ‘loser pays’ system for medical malpractice suits,” said Chambliss. “Deterring frivolous lawsuits reduces health care costs for all Americans. We can preserve a fair legal process while eliminating the presence of questionable lawsuits that are currently clogging our judicial system.”

In a letter of support to the Senators, the United States Chamber of Commerce stated the provision, “represents a positive and significant step toward providing a more reliable justice system for the victims of medical malpractice.” The Chamber noted that the amendment “encourages the states to establish alternative methods for resolving medical liability claims and provides them with the latitude to develop unique approaches that fit the needs of their diverse populations.”
(more…)

December 7, 2009

Leahy wants antitrust law to apply to insurers

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 1:27 pm

side note: Has the obstructionism displayed by insurers brought this measure upon themselves? If so, is there anything that can be done about it?

(AP) — MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy wants to amend the Senate’s health care reform bill to make health and medical malpractice insurers subject to federal antitrust laws.

Health insurers have been exempt from antitrust laws designed to protect consumers and encourage competition for more than 60 years, but Leahy has proposed repealing the exemption. His proposal is similar to a provision in the House-passed health care bill that would ban insurers from fixing prices and dividing up the market to avoid competition.

Insurers say they don’t engage in such practices and that they’re already heavily regulated. Leahy told The Burlington Free Press that the measure is necessary to foster competition in an industry that often raises premiums well above the cost of living.

see original

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress