Archive for category Op-Ed

Bingo!

Atlanta anesthesiologist Dr. Tod Rubin says in an op/ed piece in today’s Washington Times what many of us have been thinking:

The suggestion by President Obama to provide a paltry $50 million to institute a medical liability pilot program is just another example of how insincere, deceptive and ignorant he remains on the substantive issues affecting our health care system. To infer that giving each state $1 million to study the medical malpractice liability issues it faces is laughable.

Dr. Rubin, who is a board member of Docs 4 Patient Care, presents a common-sense three-point plan to combat the problem of abusive medical malpractice lawsuits. Fear of such lawsuits force physicians to practice defensive medicine that in turn increases the costs of our health care system by $200 billion to $400 billion per year.

The Obama plan to provide $1m per state to study the issue is too clever by a half. The President hopes to fool us into thinking he’s serious about med mal reform when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence that reform could save hundreds of billions of health care dollars each year. The President is both unwilling to stand up to the trial bar that funds his political operation and unwilling to shoot straight with the American public. No wonder his health care proposal is in such choppy waters.

Read Dr. Rubin’s full piece here.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Screeching Hypocrisy

By now you’ve likely heard liberals screech that the Citizens United ruling will allow corporate interests to dominate the political process. Lost in the noise is the reality that all it does is give business interests a fighting chance to go toe to toe with the trial bar.

In “The Majority Leader of the Lawsuit Lobby” at National Review, our friend Jim Copland takes a look at the “unprecedented” bidding being done on behalf of the trial bar by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. That’s the same Harry Reid who’s taken in over $2m from non-lobbyist lawyers.  Copland notes:

Over this election cycle, Senator Reid’s campaign and leadership committees have raked in over $2 million from non-lobbyist lawyers, more than twice as much as he has received from any other industry or profession. Four of Reid’s seven largest campaign donors are law firms, and these aren’t corporate-law firms helping to structure the financials for Las Vegas casinos but rather out-of-state plaintiffs’ firms, including asbestos firms in New York, Maryland, and Illinois, as well as a toxic-tort firm in California.

Copland explores the substantial return that the trial bar has received on their investment in Reid. He finds that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act ended up a “bonanza for the litigation industry”, that the trial bar used the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to gut “the statute of limitations in pay-discrimination claims”, and that the trial bar/Reid agenda is just getting going.

So in the eyes of big government liberals all is well when the trial bar steers millions to the Senate majority leader but it’s a crisis for the Supreme Court to allow corporations to exercise free speech. Only in Washington.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Your Prescription for Cheerios is Ready

AJP President Dan Pero has a featured op/ed in this morning’s Washington Times.

This must read exposes the absurd over-reach of the current FDA.  This type of government over-regulation is strangling free enterprise and the job creating businesses that employ our friends and neighbors.  Dan does a better job telling the story than we do but here’s a picture that appears with the op/ed that while maybe not worth a thousand words made us chuckle over our morning bowl of Cheerios.

Nice work Dan!

screen-shot-2010-03-10-at-95731-am

, , , , , ,

No Comments

House Dems on Med Mal Reform: “Just Kidding!”

Remember President Obama’s talk about pilot programs to test medical malpractice reform as a way to control health care costs?  Well, it’s looking more and more like it was all done with a wink and a nod to the trial bar.

The Washington Times editorial “Chloroform for tort reform” exposes the truth:

With several restrictive qualifications and entirely at the discretion of the secretary of Health and Human Services, the provision, indeed, promises “an incentive payment” for states to try lawsuit reform. Then comes the kicker, though: The bill allows such incentive payments only if “the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”

This provision is a poison pill. Fee limits or damage caps are the two most popular lawsuit reforms in states across the country, and they are demonstrably effective at cutting malpractice-insurance rates and attracting more doctors to the states that embrace them. To pretend to encourage tort reform while punishing states that actually implement reforms is akin to encouraging a diet while assessing fines for losing weight. It’s dishonest, and it ought to be a deal killer.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is behind the ploy that suggests a cynicism beyond the pale.  While it’s heartening that the Congressional majority believes that publicly opposing legal reform is hazardous to one’s political health it’s equally distressing that they may just get away with their disingenuous plan to kill it with a poison pill.

It’s time to step up, speak out and shine a spotlight on this sham.

, , , , ,

No Comments

An 83% solution - that’s dead on arrival

Serious students of health care reform recognize you’re hard pressed to achieve meaningful savings without reforming the malpractice system that forces doctors to practice defensive medicine.

And serious students of politics realize that asking the party of the trial bar to embrace meaningful legal reforms is as likely as the Washington Nationals mounting a late run for the pennant.

Philip K. Howard lays it all out in a piece titled “Why Medical Malpractice Is Off Limits” from the Wall Street Journal.

The upshot is simple:  A few thousand trial lawyers are blocking reforms that would benefit 300 million Americans.

The American public also favors legal overhaul.  A recent Common Good/Committee for Economic Development poll found that 83% of Americans believe that “as part of any health care reform plan, Congress needs to  change the medical malpractice system.”

But of course the trial bar has a stranglehold on scores of Capitol Hill Democrats who are protecting their deep-pocketed benefactors at nearly every turn.

Congress now realizes it can’t completely stonewall legal reform.  But what has unfolded so far is a series of vague pronouncements and token proposals - all of which assiduously avoid any specific ideas that might offend the trial bar.

The real tragedy is that trial lawyer greed both hurts legitimate victims and is trumping a solution that so many different experts agree is worth a try.

But under the current system, 54 cents of the malpractice dollar goes to lawyers and administrative costs, according to a 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine. And because the legal process is so expensive, most injured patients without large claims can’t even get a lawyer. “It would be hard to design a more inefficient compensation system,” says Michelle Mello, a professor of law and public health at Harvard, “or one which skewed incentives more away from candor and good practices.”

As for the trial bar’s cry that they’re the only guardian of victims of medical mistakes - well Howard puts that claim to the test.

Trial lawyers also suggest they alone are the bulwark against ineffective care, citing a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine that “over 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors.” But the same study found that distrust of the justice system contributes to these errors by chilling interaction between doctors and patients. Trial lawyers haven’t reduced the errors. They’ve caused the fear.

Former Sen. John Edwards, for example, made a fortune bringing 16 cases against hospitals for babies born with cerebral palsy. Each of those tragic cases was worth millions in settlement. But according to a 2006 study at the National Institutes of Health, in nine out of 10 cases of cerebral palsy nothing done by a doctor could have caused the condition.

So as they used to say “follow the bouncing ball.”  It’s in the Democrats court now - unless of course the trial bar has already snatched it and hid it in their pocket.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Loser of the Week: Scott Caruthers, Florida Justice Association

The Buzz

September 26, 2009

Loser of the week: Scott Carruthers. The executive director of the Florida Justice Association, might think about changing his group’s name yet again to the Florida Sleaze Peddlers. Carruthers last week admitted the trial lawyer group funded a racist mailer sent in a heated state senate special election in northeast Florida. With pictures of Black Panthers, President Obama, the Rev. Louis Farrakhan and ACORN marchers the mailer asked: “Is this the change you want to believe in?”

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/09/winner-and-loser-of-the-week-3.html

, , , ,

No Comments

The President’s Tort Two-Step

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL | OPINION JOURNAL

Opinion: Potomac Watch | September 11, 2009

Special-interests and the health-care status quo.

by Kimberley A. Strassel

On Wednesday the president told Congress “I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” In fact, the administration is standing by to allow its most special, special interest to drive this debate. What the tort bar wants, the tort bar gets. Health insurers should be so lucky.

The legal question has become the starkest symbol of a broken health discussion, and offers insight into this presidency. For Republicans, legal reform has become a litmus test, proof that Democrats have no interest in a deal, and therefore a reason to step back. For many Americans, legal reform has become proof that President Obama is more interested in an ideological triumph than his stated goal of lowering health costs.

Tort reform is a policy no-brainer. Experts on left and right agree that defensive medicine—ordering tests and procedures solely to protect against Joe Lawyer—adds enormously to health costs. The estimated dollar benefits of reform range from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion. In context, Mr. Obama’s plan would cost about $100 billion annually. That the president won’t embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower costs, has left Americans suspicious of his real ambitions.

It’s also a political no-brainer. Americans are on board. Polls routinely show that between 70% and 80% of Americans believe the country suffers from excess litigation. The entire health community is on board. Republicans and swing-state Democrats are on board. State and local governments, which have struggled to clean up their own civil-justice systems, are on board. In a debate defined by flash points, this is a rare area of agreement. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

A Funny Bone: One Doc’s Prescription for the Legal Industry

With all the heat and light surrounding Obamacare, surprisingly little noise has come from the doctors on the front lines of providing health care. Until now.

In a Wall Street Journal piece titled “A Doctor’s Plan for Legal Industry Reform” Dr. Richard B. Rafal offers a hysterical, tongue-in-cheek look at how doctor’s might improve the legal profession.   The New York radiologist offers to turn the tables on the very lawyers that drive up health care costs with the filing of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

Since lawyers are key architects of the proposed health care reform, Rafal reasons that doctors ought to be able to return the favor and oversee reform of the legal industry.

“I will gladly volunteer for the important duty of controlling and regulating lawyers. Since most of what lawyers do is repetitive boilerplate or pushing paper, physicians would have no problem dictating what is appropriate for attorneys. We physicians know much more about legal practice than lawyers do about medicine.”

“Physician committees can decide whether lawyers are necessary in any given situation.”

Dr. Rafal’s eleven proposals for reforming the legal system include: Legal DRGs, the rationing of legal care, physician controlled legal review and others. They’re sure to elicit laughter from most everyone but the trial bar.

Check out the full piece to see how applying the proposed “reforms” to health care would affect the legal profession.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Tort Reform Is Key To Health Reform

By TIGER JOYCE | Posted Monday, August 24, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Investors Business Daily

ibdeditlogoThough common-sense Americans have repeatedly raised the issue of tort reform while discussing health care legislation with members of Congress during town hall meetings this month, too many lawmakers and analysts still stubbornly insist that medical liability lawsuits do not contribute significantly to rising health care costs. These lawmakers and analysts are wrong.

A 2006 Harvard School of Public Health study found that four out of every 10 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in America each year were “without merit.” Nonetheless, defending against such lawsuits imposes costs on doctors, hospitals and insurers that invariably are passed on to health care consumers.

Beyond the obvious costs of litigation, more subtle costs related to the practice of “defensive medicine” are contributing to runaway health care inflation.

How much? In a Massachusetts Medical Society survey published last November, 83% of Bay State physicians cited the fear of being sued in their decisions to practice defensive medicine. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Stonewalling Legal Reform

– The Atlantic

correspondents

It is incredible to me that, amid public concern over the leading healthcare proposals, congressional leadership continues to stonewall any discussion of legal overhaul. They have effectively left the field open to Republicans, who now have seized the center with proposals for special health courts and other ideas that enjoy broad support from almost all healthcare constituents, including consumer groups and patient safety advocates. See herehere and here. I know the trial lawyers give Democrats a lot of money, but can this possibly be smart politics? Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

No Comments

Data Recovery Software