Recent Events in the News

Tort reform won't cure health care

Posted on Jun 14, 2006

Tort reform won't cure health care By KEVIN F. GUYETTE The tactic is always the same in attempts to sway the public that tort reform is in everyone's best interest: Begin with a lie and lead the unassuming down the primrose path. Those currently calling for tort reform in medical cases ignore basic economic factors and seek to impose an artificial economic system in order to insure profits for the insurance companies. The May 25 guest viewpoint touted tort reform as financially beneficial to "all of us." Interestingly, those calling for tort reform are the ones with the most to gain while "all of us" stand the most to lose. This opinion is not meant to criticize the many qualified doctors; it is meant to point out inaccuracies in the May 25 article which ignored economic factors germane to medical malpractice. A 1993 study conducted at Duke University showed that one out of 10 people injured due to doctors' malpractice considered bringing a lawsuit. The system further operates quite well to sift undeserving cases. In order to bring a suit for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit of merit with the complaint where the malpractice is not obvious (such as a wrong part of the body being operated on, or a foreign object left in the body). The case must be reviewed by a medical expert, averring that the case has merits. Even though a case may be meritorious, further costs may prohibit an injured party from seeking redress. The defense may respond by producing its own expert affidavits in a motion for summary (or shortened) judgment. The judge reviews the record before the court and determines whether there is even a material factual dispute. Thus many cases are screened out of the system before a jury of one's peers even has a chance to consider the facts. If a case goes to jury, one-third of plaintiffs prevail. A further economic reality is the fact that the legal system cannot restore an injured person to the health they had prior to the doctor's malfeasance. It can only award monetary damages. More important, insurance companies don't lose money. They don't simply react to a settlement or verdict by just paying the judgment -- they react by increasing the premiums for the insured. Tort reformers would like to remove pain and suffering awards and place a cap on economic damages in the hope that by limiting the potential award fewer qualified attorneys will take and advance the cause for the injured party and eventually there will be fewer medical malpractice claims. Imagine any area of American life where a potential wrongdoer is allowed to operate with immunity. Rather than increase the quality of care, the opposite occurs. There will not be fewer injured parties, nor will the quality of health care improve -- nor will insurance premiums be reduced for doctors. The only party standing to gain in this scenario are the insurance companies. By ignoring studies to the contrary and using scare tactics, the so-called tort reformers are trying to "con"-vince the American public that it is the selfish, injured parties and their greedy attorneys' fault that the American public cannot afford medical care. Basic economics is very instructive here: demand (the American public) has increased while the supply (doctors) has remained constant, thus driving up the price (health care costs). The insurance companies through U.S. medical schools, by controlling the enrollment, regulate the number of doctors practicing in the United States, thereby ensuring high costs of medical care and treatment. One solution which initially appears counterintuitive is to increase the enrollment of medical students in the United States. The increased number of doctors graduating would lead to increased competition, and better, more affordable health care would be available to the public. As far as runaway jury verdicts go, put yourself in the place of a widower who has been taking his wife to the doctor for months only to be told that she has the flu. It isn't until she passes out that she agrees to see a different doctor, whereupon she is asked if a chest X-ray has ever been performed, which would have shown a malignant tumor. Or the parents who have a lifetime of raising a permanently injured child with astronomical costs just to survive. Now imagine yourself on a jury telling either of those plaintiffs how much money is too much.