Posts Tagged Trial Lawyers

The Public Gets It

Like many Americans we’ll be paying close attention to tomorrow’s Health Care Summit.  A new national survey by Public Opinion Strategies includes the following very interesting finding:

When asked an open-ended question about the one or two reform ideas they would most like to see emerge from the meeting, Republicans and Independents would put medical liability much higher on the agenda than what is being discussed in Washington.

Needless to say we couldn’t agree more.  The need for medical liability reform is the sleeping giant of the health care debate.  By embracing it Democrats could score a hat trick: a) find enough common ground to get agreement with Republicans, b) tackle one of the major cost drivers that is essential to actually getting control of health care costs, and c) catch up with the public!

But will the trial bar let them do what’s good for the country?  Do we really need to answer that?

, , , , , ,

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

Selling out doctors to pay off trial lawyers

Politico

By NEWT GINGRICH & WAYNE OLIVER | 9/3/09 2:26 PM EDT

politicologo

Civil justice reform, which is sometimes referred to as “tort reform,” is not addressed in any health reform bill now being considered by Congress. As a matter of fact, civil justice reform is rarely being discussed even though it should be a critical component of every discussion and in every legitimate health reform bill.

Physicians understand its importance. And so do the American people. Many are beginning to wonder why it’s not in any bill.

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week said, “Tort reform is not in the bill because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers. And, that is the plain and simple truth.”

Read the rest of this entry »

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

No Comments

Health Care Push Revives Tort Reform Debate

NationalJournal.com

ONLINE EXCLUSIVE

Proponents Predict Billions In Savings From Reform, But Opponents Say Changes Aren’t Worth It

Addressing the American Medical Association in June, President Obama got applause for bringing up an issue facing many doctors — the threat of malpractice suits. “I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they’re constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits,” he said. “I understand some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable.”

But he immediately tempered the crowd. “I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards, which I personally believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed,” he added, to scattered booing.

Obama’s tightrope walk captured some of the difficulties on both sides of the debate over tort reform, a long-standing debate that has gained new prominence amid the summer’s larger battle over health care reform. It’s almost universally agreed that the threat of lawsuits hangs over doctors and has led to more tests and costs, but wholesale reform of the tort system is viewed by many observers as too big — or too divisive — a step without enough of a payoff. 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

Trial lawyers are the fourth branch of government

www.sfexaminer.com.png

By: Daniel J. Popeo
Special to The Examiner
August 20, 2009

Ten years ago, notorious trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs, apparently frustrated with elected officials’ inaction on health care, decided to take matters into his own hands, filing class-action lawsuits against HMOs.

Reporting on the suits, Time magazine asked Scruggs whether the plaintiffs’ bar was trying to run America. His response, accompanied by laughter, was, “Somebody’s got to do it.”

Today, even though Scruggs is in jail, his manifest-destiny vision of private lawyers making public policy has become a troubling reality. To borrow a phrase from author and legal commentator Walter Olsen, trial lawyers have become “an unelected fourth branch of government.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers, cloaking themselves in the veil of “public interest,” have earned billions from class-action and other private suits aimed at imposing new taxes or regulations. But these lawyers have found that bringing the same types of suits on behalf of public entities, instead of private individuals, is a far more effective and lucrative way to advance their policy agendas. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Dems’ Ace in the Hole on Health Care: Tort Reform

By Bob Beckel

rcpoliticslogo“It will be tough to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they’re looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits… some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable.” (President Obama, American Medical Association June 2009).

“Anyone who denies there is a crisis in medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer.”  (Barack Obama 1996 Illinois State Senate race).

“I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards.” (President Obama, AMA convention June 2009).

The first two statements are right on Mr. President, reconsidering the third may well save healthcare reform.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

No Comments