Compensation caps are not a workable solution to the problems of our health care system. Several states already have caps on non-economic damages in med-mal cases, including Texas, California, Florida, Missouri, and Nevada. Given that some of our most populous states have caps, one would think that this might have some effect on med-mal premiums nationally or at least within those states, but states with caps have continued to see their premiums go up, even as compensation to victims has gone down.
Successful health care cost containment will come from comprehensive reform in how we deliver health care services, not compensation caps. Nations who deliver health care more universally, use more preventive care, and who reduce the administrative costs through a national insurance system, realize per capita savings of 25% or more compared to our system. Compensation cap advocates cannot credibly claim anything even approaching such a significant savings. If we are going to decide to place the burden of cost containment so heavily on the shoulders of those maimed and crippled by malpractice, shouldn’t we at least be able to demonstrate savings greater than those available by any other means?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - RJ
"Properly compensating victims according to objective juries’ awards"
You were convincing until this point in your post.
"Properly" is a loaded word. It's meaningless in this context.
"Objective juries" is another loaded phrase. Juries regularly award insane amounts of money that are subsequently reduced by the judge.
Let's say I go to the hospital for a bad cut on my pinky toe, and some idiot doctor amputates the WRONG pinky toe. In response, I grab some whiplash-willy lawyer and sue for 500 million dollars. And some jury composed of people too stupid to get out of jury duty finds for the prosecution, and awards me $500,000,000.00. And the judge, unelected and too senile to care, does not step in and change the amount.
Is that fair? Wouldn't a cap on punitive damages (and other miscellaneous damages) prevent such a thing from happening?
2 - mike
You need to read "Medical Malpractice and the American Jury". The idea of run-away juries is simply apocryphal. And capping punative damages isn't what the GOP is gunning for; they want to cap all 'non-economic' damages. That includes pain and suffering and future costs. That's just plain cruel.
3 - Eric Olsen
very interesting, important and well-written Michael, thanks and welcome! I don't know what the answer is, but I do know my wife's very excellent ob/gyn was literally driven from the state of Ohio by exorbitant malpractice insurance rates simply because he was an ob/gyn, not because of anything on his record - he showed us some of the paperwork. Something has to be done, and "improving healthcare" is a bit amorphous.
4 - Dave Nalle
>>The cost of caring for a child paralyzed or otherwise disabled for a lifetime by malpractice can run into the millions, yet these so-called ‘reformers’ want to cap all awards at a low level, regardless of the facts of the case.<<
This statement is untrue. As far as I am aware, every cap which has been passed applies only to punitive damages only and not to real damages. So if you face a lifetime of medical expenses for a disabled child you get that money first and the cap applies to the money added on to that money solely to punish the doctor or hospital.
This appears to be a common misunderstanding of tort reform which you are perpetuating. A cap on actual damages would indeed be totally unfair, but a cap on punitive damages only really harms lawyers who hope to take advantage of vengeful or ignorant juries and run up outrageous punitive damages when going after a deep-pocketed client.
Dave
5 - RJ
Er, just to clarify...
In my comment above, I meant "plaintiff" not "prosecution"...