Saturday, February 04, 2006

Reinstate the Cap

This is why we had caps in the first place.

What has been happening throughout the country already has begun in Wisconsin, less than seven months after the Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the state’s monetary limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases.

A Dane County jury this week awarded $8.4 million, including $4.25 million in damages for pain and suffering, to a patient who had suffered serious health problems following surgery. The former cap on such noneconomic damages in
Wisconsin was $445,000. Wisconsin has not limited awards for medical expenses
and other tangible economic losses.

“There are no guarantees in medicine. No matter how skilled or how careful a doctor may be, risks still exist,” said Mark Belknap, MD, president of the Wisconsin Medical Society. “Of course, we’re all saddened when a patient’s outcome doesn’t turn out as everybody hoped, but the health care system can’t afford many multi-million dollar awards for noneconomic damages, as is clear from other states in crisis,” added Dr. Belknap.

I've heard from a number of physicians who are very concerned about this. It not only drives up their costs, and makes other states much more attractive to practice medicine in.

As well, I spoke with a physician who plays a role in hiring new doctors for a large hospital in Western Wisconsin. Ever since the Supreme Court threw out the caps, he has had a tough time recruiting new doctors to Wisconsin.

What is more important for Democrats: that health care remains attainable for Wisconsin citizens, through low costs and a sufficient number of physicians, or that the trial lawyers pad their bank accounts?

From BBA

7 comments:

Jim said...

"Medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors have skyrocketed in recent years even though, as this study now confirms, claim payments are down. These findings suggest that doctors have been price-gouged for several years as insurance industry profits have ballooned to unprecedented levels. AIG, under investigation by state and federal authorities for its business practices, and HCI, a subsidiary of HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain, are among the worst offenders." - Center for Justice & Democracy

Whose bank accounts are being padded?

Remember the cost of medical malpractice is only 2% of total health care costs. And that's ALL malpractice costs.

When you say "trial lawyers" are you talking about DAs, public defenders, and other litigators or are using the Republic "frame" for consumer protection attorneys?

The Game said...

Lets just do it your way..let everyone sue everyone for everything..

That way there won't be anyone who wants to perform any service...

Every time I see a lawyer going after McDonalds because someone is fat, it makes me sick.

The Game said...

people have sued McDonald's

Jim said...

Have they won the fat suits against McDonalds? No, because people can sue for anything. But most of their lawsuits get thrown out of court. You only hear about the "outragious" ones that the corporate and insurance lobbies want you to think are the norm.

I don't deny that there are sometimes when juries reach a judgement that make me scratch my head. But you must think that all judges and all juries are stupid. When I think about it, it's kind of like when someone points out a stupid or cruel thing that a soldier has done, and you claim that we are demeaning all of "the troops" for pointing that out. You pick out one or two wacko examples and paint the entire consumer protection effort as wacko.

There are many more justified lawsuits than the few wacko ones. And the reason that there are huge punitive damages is the "punitive" part. It's to make sure that it hurts enough so that the corporation will be incented to change the way they make products so that they won't hurt people. If you cap punitive damages at some small figure like $250,000, that's chump change for any corporation and it's not going to give them any incentive to create a better, safer product.

The Game said...

I don't feel this is the case...I gues we will have to see now..

Hey Jim,
That was a well thought out arguement without any name calling or personal attacks...nice job

Jim said...

Thanks, Game, for the compliment, but not the accusation. When was the last time (or ever) that I called you or anyone a name or made a personal attack. I don't do that, and you ought to know that by now. I don't know how you could confuse me with simian hybrid.

Anonymous said...

Check this out:
http://medicalmadhouse.blogspot.com/2005/12/chalk-another-one-up-for-er-wait-i.html

And this:http://internalmedicinedoctor.blogspot.com/2006/02/consumer-watch-dog-video.html