Comments on: Doctors Who Work for the Government Already Have Medical Malpractice Reform

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:20:31 +0000

While some awards seem outrageous, many of them are inflated by the need to account for subsequent healthcare needs (and the rising rates of such care) over the span of the rest of the patient’s life. It is one thing to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but frivolity isn’t, or shouldn’t be, determined by the amount awarded. Likewise punative awards especially against individuals or organizations who display a pattern of negligent or purposeful disregard for a patient’s care, serve an invaluable and necessary service that can only be otherwise addressed through criminal prosecution and a refocussing of prosecutors at every level throughout the US. Personally, I don’t see that happening. Perhaps a system where punitive damages received by the patient were limited, but where Judges and juries were allowed to award whatever amount was deemed appropriate to deter future repeats of the behavior, and the difference is collected and distributed to indigent care programs around the state/nation.

By: Bob Hamilton

Bob Hamilton — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:49:13 +0000

I practiced general and vascular surgery in Madison County, Illinois (until recently considered by many to be the worst judicial hellhole in the U.S.)for 30 years. If we can’t get constitutionally sustainable limits on non-economic awards, we should overhaul administraion of these cases. As difficult as management of major illness an high risk treatment is under present conditions, we have to protect the rights of those who have been injured by negligence. It is equally important to protect those who give care to these patients. A qualified medical panel of same-specialty physicians should identify cases that have no merit. Further judicial and administrative steps should be evaluated by pilot projects. A $10 million judgement for a $1 million injury is ridicilous. At present, controlling malpractice litigation abuse has only ben accomplished by laws that cap non-economic awards.

By: Janice Michaud

Janice Michaud — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:09:18 +0000

The problem is that either way the cost falls on individual Americans.
Whether as taxpayers or as consumers. The cost of these windfall litigations as well as the consequences to our providers should be transparent and accountability should prevail.
The judicial branch should be held accountable.
Government doctors having immunity provides a sanctuary at the expense of taxpayers and gives government an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
Since the risk stops at individuals, government needs to be held accountable to protect all Americans whether their role be as taxpayor, consumer or litigant.
I disagree John, that government should provide this for all doctors, that would ensure inflated coss, and an eternal problem that never meets full scrutiny.

By: Bart

Bart — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:47:53 +0000

Why am I not surprised to find out that the government has opted out of the malpractice system?

By: Larry C.

Larry C. — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:26:00 +0000

Here’s the right slogan for tort reform: treat all doctors the way the government treats its doctors.

By: Bart Ingles

Bart Ingles — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:14:51 +0000

Interesting. It sort of guts the argument against tort reform, doesn’t it?

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:51:01 +0000

This is really interesting. I’ve never heard this before.