Study: Cal medical malpractice awards reduced by 30 percent

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON – California's medical malpractice law, cited as a model by President Bush, has reduced awards in malpractice trials by an average 30 percent, according to a study released Monday.

But because the landmark law capped attorney fees as well as jury awards, the net recovery by injured patients and their families fell only 15 percent, the study said. Payments to plaintiffs' lawyers dropped 60 percent.

The study by the Rand Corp., a Santa Monica think tank, looked only at how California's 1975 law affected payments in cases that went to trial. It did not look at whether the lower awards reduced malpractice insurance premiums for doctors or medical bills for consumers. Proponents argue that curbing medical malpractice lawsuits would have those results.
...
–Injury cases in which jury awards were reduced by $2.5 million or more usually involved newborns and young children with very critical injuries.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040712-0720-ca-medicalmalpractice.html

So: We don't know if the law succeeded at lowering malpractice insurance (or insurance costs to consumers, on down the line for that matter) because the 'study' didn't even check that.

But we DO know it just got a whole lot more cost effective to maim a child. Take that trial lawyers!

[Racenut20]

1. What have the insurance rates to Doctors done. Not down I bet.

[struggle4progress]

12. Here's a page of links:

... This online resource explains exactly what happened in California, including evidence that malpractice caps failed to lower insurance premiums, while insurance regulation, passed by California voters in 1988, succeeded ... http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php

[MisterP]

2. malpractice insurance premiums for doctors or medical bills for consumers

and both have gone through the roof since '75...

[AP]

3. Lets's see if this just shifts cost of raising these kids on to taxpayers.

[teryang]

4. This will reduce Americans access to the courts

...for redress of injuries. Trial lawyers are being hurt financially. That means they can't hire associates and they can't take risks on more problematic cases. Net result less legal services to those who have lost a loved one's life or suffered disability as a result of the negligence of a doctor or greed of a managed care plan.

As the number of trial lawyers able to afford to provide quality legal services to those who are in need of them are decreased, the arrogance and dictatorial traits of people in positions of authority increase.

Marginal decreases lead to major changes in economic behavior.

[TheWesson]

5. a better solution

Insurance companies could track doctors and reward those that are "safe drivers" and increase rates for those that have "accidents".

Why they don't do this, is unclear. You'd think the Republican free-marketeers would be all over this one.

the wesson

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

10. they already do

I was a medical malpractice insurance underwriter for 5 years.

The problem is the insurance industry is so heavily regulated, it is hard to properly segment risk.

[AlecBGreen]

6. IF this actually lowers malpractice insurance...

then GOOD.

--

But because the landmark law capped attorney fees as well as jury awards, the net recovery by injured patients and their families fell only 15 percent, the study said. Payments to plaintiffs' lawyers dropped 60 percent.

--

The victim should get whatever they need, but please dont tell me a lawyer deserves $10 million just b/c his client had a doctors watched sticthed into his stomach.

[Massacure]

7. I agree with this

However the lawyers should be able have enough money to hire all the staff and take the risks they need. I don't think they need to be millionares though.

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Some cases require Hundreds of Thousands of man hours.

If not more. JOE LAWYER AIN'T walking out from a victory with millions of clear profit.

This is just a way to insure that all the Attorneys will whore for companies instead of fight for you and me. They will not take cases they can't turn a profit on. And the corporate side will always have the bucks!

[iamjoy]

8. Diabolical!

I am not a lawyer, none of my family or close friends are personal injury attorneys. So I am not necessarily biased, but...

Whatever happened to free-market? To me, in a society where they don't want to enforce safety standards, the threat of massive jury awards is the only thing protecting consumers from flagrant corporate abuse. As for doctors, I feel for them, but think they are being suckered by the insurance companies on this.

And the lawyers, they are neither altruistic or greedy. It costs them money to research a case, to bring it to trial. And if they lose, they get nothing. They count on making up those expenses with those cases they win and get a big award.

What this really is, is an attack on trial lawyers. This is part of a plot by the Repugnantcans to destroy the Democratic party and turn this country into a one party system. Who as a profession or industry most heavily supports Democrats over Republicans? Trial lawyers. And if trial lawyers income is drastically reduced, they won't have as much money to give. Wake up, smell the roses, hold your noses and support trial lawyers!

BTW - all this offshoring stuff, way to break Unions, also generally tend to support Democrats vs. Republicans. I used to be anti-union, but no more!

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Standards?

society where they don't want to enforce safety standards{/I]

Which safety standards are not being enforced?


While some International product standards are more stringent than the US/Canadian requirements, both countries are moving to the international model. And the 'purely voluntary' (read litigation paranoia) parts/labels added to North American products boggles the minds of my international colleagues.

[LefterThanMost]

11. Payments to plaintiffs' lawyers dropped 60 percent

That is unacceptable. This will really help to get out the trial lawyer vote to unseat Bush. Many of these lawyers are used to a good life and just rewards for their hard work and will not accept a meager income that barely affords them a new Lexus every year. Let's hope they get out the vote to keep their lifestyle alive and well!

[struggle4progress]

13. Who buys a new Lexus every year?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Lets' hope if you ever need one to get that operation to remove your

head from you ass, they can afford to represent you :D (he was already tombstoned when I posted O8) )

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. MICRA did not lower insurance premiums in California

During the insurance crisis of the 1980s, California's 1975 law restricting the right of injured patients to sue doctors, hospitals and HMOs for medical mistakes and negligence was touted by the insurance industry and medical industry as a model "tort reform" for the nation. Doctors were told that the skyrocketing premiums they must pay to purchase malpractice insurance coverage would be reduced if MICRA-type laws were enacted.

Studies conducted during and after the 1980s "crisis" told a different story. The U.S. General Accounting Office, published a study of six states that had enacted many different forms of tort law restrictions during the "crisis" of the mid-1970s, including caps on compensation. The GAO report showed that the price of medical malpractice liability insurance in California had increased dramatically since the passage of MICRA. In fact, "premiums for physicians increased from 16 to 337 percent in southern California ... between 1980 and 1986."1 The GAO study concluded:

While it is not possible to assess the extent to which the act has had an impact on the state's malpractice situation, our analysis of key indicators indicated that the problem is continuing to worsen in California.2

According to the GAO, four states (Arkansas, Florida, New York and North Carolina) reported that the restrictions had had "little effect" on insurance premiums.3

A later, comprehensive review of insurance industry data spanning the period from 1976, when MICRA took effect, through 1991, demonstrated that its restrictions did nothing to ease the cost of malpractice insurance premiums. The average malpractice premium per California physician was higher than the national average in most years after MICRA's passage. The total cost of malpractice liability insurance premiums paid as a percentage of total health care costs was higher in California than in the nation. Moreover, the price of malpractice coverage increased in California after the passage of the law. Premiums grew 191 percent through 1988, when they began to fall, dropping 20 percent by 1991. The same pattern emerged in the nation: premiums grew 331 percent through 1989, then fell 5 percent by 1991.4

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org./insurance/fs/fs002695.php3

[GOPisEvil]

16. Next you'll tell me the Pope is Catholic.

I'm guessing insurance companies are doing very well out in CA, while the poor folks who are injured by poor medical care suffer.

Gee, a law that limits settlement amounts actually results in lower settlements. Do bears shit in the woods?

The real news is that malpractice insurance rates haven't dropped, and the cost of medical care has risen. So, the myth that "tort reform" saves money is disproven. In fact, it can be argued that it is now cheaper to let you die and deal with the malpractice than to try to save you.