HEALTH Act

[escarzamd]

Gingrey introduces Medical Liability Reform legislation
Bipartisan bill will ensure physicians are in our communities when we need them


U.S. Capitol




Washington, Jun 6 -

U.S. Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) today introduced the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act, legislation to reduce frivolous medical lawsuits that are raising the cost of healthcare and driving many physicians out of business. This bipartisan bill would abolish the financial incentives for filing expansive lawsuits, while providing a fair and timely reparations process for those who have been wronged.

?As a practicing OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I saw skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates force good doctors to hang up their stethoscopes for good,? said Gingrey. ?Already, brain trauma patients are suffering as emergency rooms scramble to find on-call specialists. Women are forced to cross state lines just to deliver a baby. Rural communities are left without hospitals. This shouldn?t be happening in America, home to the best physicians and healthcare technology in the world.?

?Today?s medical tort system is designed for lawyers, not patients,? Gingrey continued. ?Average awards in medical malpractice cases have risen 76% in recent years. This drives doctors to practice defensive medicine, adding $126 billion a year to our national healthcare costs. By reforming our medical liability system, patients can still recover full economic damages, such as medical bills and lost income ? after all, those who have been wronged deserve fair compensation. But my legislation would put reasonable limits on run-away non-economic damages, and even maximize patient awards by ensuring the bulk of a patient?s recovery is not misdirected to an attorney. Patients across America are depending on Congress to pass the HEALTH Act.?

The HEALTH Act:

-- Limits the amount of non-economic damages, or ?pain and suffering? awards, to $250,000.
-- Will not permit punitive damages unless an actual economic judgment is rendered, and then limits the amount to no greater than twice the economic damages.
-- Maximizes patients? awards by allowing courts to ensure an unjust portion of the patient?s recovery is not misdirected to an attorney.
-- Allows patients to recover the full cost of economic damages, such as medical bills and lost income.

The HEALTH Act currently has 57 co-sponsors.


Call your congressman. If all we're going to do to change the system is work on the costs, this is a big one. Doesn't hurt access and quality either.

 

[The Sponge]

I hope Eddie comments on this. My feeling is that it aint so much of the doctors fault or the lawyers but a lot to do with the Insurance companies. To me this is like drilling for oil in alsaka. To think the Oil companies will give us a break if we let them drill is foolish. Just like if we cut these claims to ten cents a patient. The insurance companies are gonna lower there rates? I think this will only up there profits. Profit is there bottom line. Always was and always will be until we elect people who can't be bought.

 

[escarzamd]

Reasonable, but the states that have instituted this on their own have shown significant decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance, and therefore a concomitant decrease in coverage gaps for specialty care and decreases in doctor "exodus."

Alot of the ultimate benefits are intuitive, and only time will tell if if the trickle down effect of decreasing costs at the grass-roots level via decreasing the need for "cover your ass" medicine are true. But, if they are true, premiums for patients will go down if less money is spent on "defensive" medicine. The short-term profit will still be there for the insurance companies. They will always govern the distribution of dollars on the really expensive tickets, but the vast majority of covered patients do not get to this point (at least until their 60s).

I am, of course, biased towards this, but states like IN, WI, CA, and TX are good examples of what happens when put into practice. The info is out there. It has worked thus far.........but it will be a tough one to get thru Congress at 250K. Illinois has tried and failed to get even a $1 million cap thru, so this bill is doomed to fail nationally as written, but the facts are the facts. How they are interpreted depends on what side of the fence you're on. Where it has been applied, the big winner has been the patient, so far.

 

[The Sponge]

Reasonable, but the states that have instituted this on their own have shown significant decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance, and therefore a concomitant decrease in coverage gaps for specialty care and decreases in doctor "exodus."

Alot of the ultimate benefits are intuitive, and only time will tell if if the trickle down effect of decreasing costs at the grass-roots level via decreasing the need for "cover your ass" medicine are true. But, if they are true, premiums for patients will go down if less money is spent on "defensive" medicine. The short-term profit will still be there for the insurance companies. They will always govern the distribution of dollars on the really expensive tickets, but the vast majority of covered patients do not get to this point (at least until their 60s).

I am, of course, biased towards this, but states like IN, WI, CA, and TX are good examples of what happens when put into practice. The info is out there. It has worked thus far.........but it will be a tough one to get thru Congress at 250K. Illinois has tried and failed to get even a $1 million cap thru, so this bill is doomed to fail nationally as written, but the facts are the facts. How they are interpreted depends on what side of the fence you're on. Where it has been applied, the big winner has been the patient, so far.

ES we had a wonderful senator that was a big fighter for this bill of 250000. Rick Santorium fought this hard until someone found out his wife had a huge malpratice suit that he refused to give back to cut it to 250.000.:shrug:

 

[escarzamd]

was that PN??? All I really know about Santorum is that he is a hard-core, right-wing, evangelical, sky-pilot type.

 

[The Sponge]

was that PN??? All I really know about Santorum is that he is a hard-core, right-wing, evangelical, sky-pilot type.

Pennsy

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Sponge since Doc has educated you on medical aspect let me educate you on insurance aspect.

Carriers who will write it at any cost are getting scare. St Paul used to be largest carrier--gone from that market.

So what you have is doctors who can longer foot the bill ( not uncommon for OB-GYN to pay $60,000 a year or more) and insurance companies who don't want to write it at any cost.

That leaves a third party--guess who--reaping all the profits--however not going to put full blame on them--have to factor in the idiots on some juries.

I might add to Docs suggestions one I have had previously. Set up arbitration boards consisting of attorneys and doctors to set the damages--done in much less time with less legal costs and takes idiots who give someone stupid enough to put coffee between their legs--drive over speed bump--and sue someone else because they got burnt - out of the equation.

 

[The Sponge]

Sponge since Doc has educated you on medical aspect let me educate you on insurance aspect.

Carriers who will write it at any cost are getting scare. St Paul used to be largest carrier--gone from that market.

So what you have is doctors who can longer foot the bill ( not uncommon for OB-GYN to pay $60,000 a year or more) and insurance companies who don't want to write it at any cost.

That leaves a third party--guess who--reaping all the profits--however not going to put full blame "on them--have to factor in the idiots on some juries.

I might add to Docs suggestions one I have had previously. Set up arbitration boards consisting of attorneys and doctors to set the damages--done in much less time with less legal costs and takes idiots who give someone stupid enough to put coffee between their legs--drive over speed bump--and sue someone else because they got burnt - out of the equation.

one the doctor works with the other the lawyer because the big guy "insurance companies" are the major thieves. Why in the debates in 04 they had a figure on how much lawyers cost this problem and it was less that 1 percent if im correct.:shrug: