|
10-6-05 - LIABILITY UPDATE - "Healthy recovery since...legislature passed
medical liability reform"
by Donna Baver Rovito, Editor, "Liability Update"
Author, "Pennsylvania's Disappearing Doctors"
This LIABILITY UPDATE "newsletter" is a free service which I provide, as a
volunteer, to help provide medical liability reform and crisis information
to physicians, patients and physician advocates. I do not work for any
physician advocacy organization.
Opinions and clarifications are my own, and do NOT reflect the official
position of any physician or patient advocacy organization unless stated as
such. Opinions are placed in double parentheses ((xxxxxx)), italicized and
appear in blue.
This Update is emailed to approximately 7,500 health professionals and
physician and patient advocates.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO EVERY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL
YOU KNOW AND SEND ME MORE EMAIL ADDRESSES
1...Commentary
2....Best's Review
Doctors' Orders
3....Congressional Record
Success of the Texas Medical Liability Trust
4...Best Wire
Gains Realized With Texas Med-Mal Reforms
5....WSJ Opinion Journal
In Mississippi, tort reform works.
6....Modern Physician.com
W.Va. med mal insurers seek rate cuts as lawsuits decline
7...Atlanta Business Chronicle
Tort reform expected to bring more specialists to Georgia
8....Arkansas Democrat Gazette
Arkansas medical malpractice rate slows
1...Commentary
There's a LOT of good news in this Update, as well as ammunition for you to
use when the Dark Side argues against liability reform "because it won't
work anyway," or when they blame the medical liability crisis on those evil,
greedy insurance companies. Because in states where substantive reforms
have been passed, medical liability premiums HAVE started to go down. It's
hard to argue with facts - but don't worry, those who oppose reform don't
let facts get in the way of their profits....
DBR
2....Best's
Review
Doctors' Orders
September 2005 Issue
Physicians have wielded their clout to bring about medical-liability reform,
but what lies beyond caps on damages?
In early 2002, the medical-legal framework in Texas was strained to the
limit. On one side were personal injury lawyers advertising heavily and
juries returning awards in medical-malpractice lawsuits that ranged into the
millions of dollars. On the other were trauma centers closing their doors,
medical-liability insurers rapidly exiting the market and doctors retiring
early or moving their practices elsewhere.
Across the state, there were murmurings of a doctors' strike.
"We had reached a breaking point," recalls Corpus Christi radiologist Burk
Strong. "But we decided we needed to do something else."
So instead of striking, the doctors ordered up a cure.
Armed with bumper stickers and buttons, pamphlets to distribute in their
waiting rooms and yard signs to post on the lawns of their homes, medical
professionals affiliated with the 50,000-member Texas Medical Association
joined others in a rally for change. In Strong's region, 200 doctors, with
busloads of supporters and friendly legislators in tow, held an awareness
day at the Nueces County Courthouse. At the Texas Capitol, 180 miles away in
Austin, doctors began showing up on the first Tuesday of each month, donning
white coats and meeting with policymakers to state their cause.
The efforts "paid off big time," said Strong, who was president of the
Nueces County Medical Society at the time. On June 11, 2003, Gov.
Rick Perry signed into law House Bill 4, which contained sweeping tort
reforms, including a $250,000 limit on noneconomic, or "pain and suffering"
damages and a $750,000 overall limit per case. The public backed up
the bill by approving Proposition 12, which allowed liability insurance
premiums to immediately decrease by circumventing a possible 10-year wait
for the state Supreme Court to determine whether caps were permitted under
the Texas Constitution. Washed out with the turning of the tide were
huge jury awards, including one that topped out at $10.5 million in 2000.
So far, the doctors' activities helped to drive an initial 12% cut in
medical-liability premiums by the Texas Medical Liability Trust and a
subsequent 5% reduction. In addition, 11 new insurers have entered the Texas
medical-liability market.
What happened in Texas is just one example of how, in recent years,
doctors across the country have set the stage for legislative reform,
particularly in the area of capping noneconomic damages. Since 2002 alone,
those efforts, coupled with advocacy by the insurance industry and other
groups, have led to reforms in a number of states, including Alaska,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia.
The lobbying skills used to get there, however, weren't something doctors
picked up in medical school.
"A lot of doctors had always hated bringing politics into the office. The
doctor and patient relationship is very important," Strong said. "But most
of them realized the importance of doing that. So doctors began talking to
patients."
National Efforts
Christian Shalgain, manager of legislative affairs for the American College
of Surgeons, said those efforts have been felt at home as well as on Capitol
Hill, where federal medical-liability reforms are currently on the burner.
"We have seen doctors become much more active in the political process and
getting medical-liability reform," Shalgain said. "They've come to testify,
bringing their patients with them and meeting representatives. The
combination of the doctors' stories and the patients' stories (in terms of
scarcity of access) have gone to show legislators what the true need for
medical-liability reform is."
And while the need for reform has been subject to great debate, with some
blaming the current medical-liability crisis on exorbitant jury awards and
others alleging profiteering by liability insurance companies, one thing
most agree upon is that doctors are facing a problem, Shalgain said.
According to the American Hospital Association, 45% of hospitals
reported that the professional-liability crisis has resulted in the loss of
physicians or reduced coverage in emergency departments. Moreover, a
Harris Poll found that more than 75% of doctors believe medical-liability
litigation has negatively affected their ability to provide quality care in
recent years.
In response to the argument that medical-malpractice insurers are swimming
in reserves, Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Susan Cogswell wonders why
the number of such insurers doing business in her state dropped in the past
decade from 19 to the current three. "Many insurers are leaving the market
either because they can't provide at profitable rates or because they are
going insolvent," she said.
According to A.M. Best Co.'s 2004 Best's Aggregates & Averages, over the
past decade the profitability of medical-liability insurers has been on the
decline and was lower than that of other property/casualty insurers. Between
1996 and 2003, the combined ratio of medical-liability insurers increased
from 106.6 to 136.9, meaning that for every $1 insurers received in
premiums in 2003, they paid out about $1.37 in claims and expenses.
In contrast, the 2003 combined ratio of all property/casualty insurers was
100.1.
Caps or No Caps
However, as doctors go about trying to solve the issue of soaring
medical-liability premiums, those in line for harm are the innocent victims
of medical malpractice, represented by lawyers, said Carlton Carl, spokesman
for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
"Who does tort reform hurt? It hurts people injured by, not the fault of
their own, but by the neglect or greed of others. The proposal to cap
damages applies to every case, no matter how severe the injury, no matter
how outrageous the neglect of the doctor or hospital or nursing home or drug
company," Carl said. "It would, in fact, apply to the mother whose child is
killed as a result of malpractice and the children whose parent is killed in
a nursing home.
"Caps on damages don't improve the quality of health care, they don't
minimize instances of mistakes, they don't increase the availability of
health care and they don't reduce premiums. The only thing they do is to put
more money back in the pockets of the insurance companies," he said.
((...whereas unlimited jury awards "don't minimize instances of mistakes,
they don't increase the availability of health care and they don't reduce
premiums. The only thing they do is to put more money back in the pockets of
the" trial lawyers...." ))
Robert Detlefsen, public policy director for the National Association of
Mutual Insurance Companies, said the bulk of insurers' expenses
originate not so much from hefty jury awards -- the average of which,
according to the American Medical Association, has doubled in recent years
-- but from legal expenses and settlements that are made under the threat of
such awards.
"The slogan about the insurance industry deciding on the value of a person's
life is really sort of a canard," Detlefsen said. "You're leaving it up to a
jury to decide what noneconomic damages to a plaintiff have occurred based
on the evidence presented. But the question becomes, should juries have
unlimited power to award intangible things such as pain and suffering? The
fact is, as long as there's a potential for these very large jury
awards, the existence of that phenomenon influences the entire settlement
process."
"If you just focus on the parade of horribles, you find yourself on a
slippery slope that leads to the situation that we're in today, where
doctors are subject to potential ruinous litigation expenses and damage
awards to the point where it becomes next to impossible for them to obtain
affordable malpractice insurance, and they have to shut down their
practices," Detlefsen said.
As doctors continue their quest, the legal landscape will likely change as
well, said John Salvucci, an insurance lawyer for the Philadelphia-based law
firm Cozen O'Connor. No longer will a $250-an-hour defense lawyer be up
against a $2,500-an-hour plaintiff's lawyer who collects medical-malpractice
cases as an investor does stocks and bonds, knowing that the risk is bound
to pay off in at least a few cases, Salvucci said.
"If you put caps in place on medical-malpractice cases, that ends. The
plaintiff's attorney who is used to making multimillions of dollars, they're
going to switch and do something else," Salvucci said. "Lawyers are
fighting these measures through political action committees, but states are
passing laws anyway. There has been a change in the philosophy of the
consuming public, led by the disenfranchisement of physicians."
And while caps may accomplish a certain result for insureds as well as
insurers, and physicians are likely to remain vocal on the topic, in
the end, alternate reforms may be necessary to usher in a lasting cure.
One option, Detlefsen said, may be the adoption of "loser pays" rules, which
exist in Europe and Japan and require a losing party in a lawsuit, whether
it be the defendant or plaintiff, to pay the legal expenses incurred by the
other side. Another answer may come though creating
medical-malpractice courts, which so far have seen consideration in
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts.
"Logic will tell if (placement of caps for noneconomic damages) is an
effective remedy. But experience doesn't always follow logic. We haven't
accumulated enough experience yet to know just how effective caps are going
to be," Detlefsen said.
3....Congressional
Record
Success of the Texas Medical Liability Trust
Michael Burgess (R-TX)
September 21, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, just a little over 2 years ago Texas passed a
constitutional amendment that allowed for caps on noneconomic damages in
medical liability lawsuits. And what has been the experience in Texas over
those 2 years?
Well, we have seen insurance and doctors come back to the State. Texas had
gone from 17 down to two medical insurance companies, and now they are back
up to 12. Not-for-profit hospitals have seen significant increases in the
money that they are now able to invest in plants and equipment, money that
otherwise would have gone for their self-insurance programs.
And perhaps most importantly, the rates of liability insurance for Texas
doctors has come down. Texas Medical Liability Trust has reduced rates three
times since the passage of House bill 4 and proposition 12, 12 percent in
2004, 5 percent in 2005, and now a recently announced 5 percent decrease in
2006, and, coupled with that, a 5 percent dividend rebate. So that now there
is a total of 27 percent insurance savings for Texas doctors in medical
liability.
Speaking to physicians of the Texas Medical Association just last weekend,
Dr. Dennis Factor said, “Access to health care and the malpractice
environment in Texas has made a healthy recovery since the Texas legislature
passed medical liability reform.''
I urge this body to take it up and get it done.
4...Best
Wire
Report: Gains Realized With Texas Med-Mal Reforms
August 3, 2006
AUSTIN, Texas - According to a 357-page article in the latest edition of
Texas Tech Law Review, Texas' two-year-old House Bill 4 and Proposition 12
reform measures could turn the tide toward sanity and stability in the
state's medical liability system.
"We believe the law review article will undergird the work of the
legislators and probably dissuade appeals, as the legislative intent is made
clear," said Jon Opelt, executive director of Texas Alliance for
Patient Access, which, along with its 300 affiliate organizations, pushed
for the landmark liability reforms in 2003.
((That's what we need here in PA and at the national level - 300 affiliate
organizations! They did it RIGHT in Texas....))
"On the surface, House Bill 4 had more than 200 changes in the law. So it's
a dramatic rewrite," Opelt said. "As such, it's difficult for practitioners
to understand all of the changes, and so they set out to produce a reference
guide to help (the legal community) better understand the changes."
On June 11, 2003, Gov. Rick Perry signed into law House Bill 4, which
introduced a $250,000 limit on noneconomic, or "pain and suffering" damages,
as well as a $750,000 overall limit per case. The public backed up the
bill by approving the state constitutional amendment Proposition 12, which
allowed liability insurance premiums to immediately decrease by
circumventing a possible 10-year wait for the state Supreme Court to
determine whether caps were permitted under the Texas Constitution.
"Two years ago, Texas lawmakers passed arguably the most expansive rewrite
of the state's civil justice laws since the adoption of the Texas
constitution 140 years ago," Walter Huffman, dean of the Texas Tech
University School of Law said in a statement. The law review article "is
intended as ... a road map to what lawmakers intended to enact," he said.
The review, written by six Texas attorneys, weaves together legislative
testimony and debate, commentary during floor votes, and research submitted
for the record to capture what legislators had in mind when they made the
decisions they did.
State Rep. Joe Nixon, a civil litigation attorney who co-authored the
article, said the reforms put in place by HB 4 went beyond
medical-malpractice liability, to include everything from class action and
product liability to emergency-room care and immunity for school teachers.
Nixon often travels the United States, giving speeches and visiting
legislators on the subject of tort reform.
What happened in Texas, Nixon said, proves civil justice reforms work to the
benefit of insureds as well as insurers.
"I do think it's that big of a deal. If you saw how hard it was fought by
trial attorneys, you would understand," Nixon said. "Over the years, things
slowly eroded in Texas. We had 40% to 60% of all asbestos claims in the
United States filed here. Since the reforms, we have seen a 50% drop in
civil lawsuits."
From the perspective of how bad things were prior to the reforms, the
article cites the hospitals that were turning away ambulances due to a
shortage of doctors and nurses; a quadrupling of the average medial
liability awards, from $472,932 in 1989 to $2 million in 1999; a departure
of 13 carriers from the market between 1999 and 2003, and a legal
system in which 85% of medical-liability claims against Texas physicians
were closed with no payment made to the patient.
Early returns show a growing list of benefits that are being realized as a
result of the reforms, according to the report. These include:
- Since May 2003, more than 3,000 new doctors have established
practice in Texas
- From four carriers in 2002, the market has seen the arrival of 22
new carriers
- The number of physicians enrolled in the Joint Underwriting
Association, the state pool of last resort, has seen a steady decline, while
the number of practicing neurosurgeons and emergency care, orthopedic
physicians has grown dramatically
-The Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest physician liability
insurer in Texas, experienced a total rate reduction of 16.4%,
representing a $34 million rate savings for doctors ((Math
101 - Keep in mind that a previous 100% INCREASE in premiums is wiped out by
a 50% DECREASE....))
5....WSJ
Opinion Journal
In Mississippi, tort reform works.
BY CHARLIE ROSS
September 15, 2005
Legislative battles over tort reform are being waged in statehouses across
the country. Congress, too, is fighting out the issue in the form of
proposed legislation to cap medical malpractice damage awards and to reform
asbestosis litigation. Always hotly debated in such contests is whether tort
reform accomplishes its purported goals. Does it make the legal system more
predictable and more credible? Does it positively affect insurance costs and
availability? Does it reduce litigation expenditures? More broadly, does it
improve the economic well-being of the citizens?
In 2004, a long hard battle in the Mississippi Legislature over a
comprehensive Tort Reform Bill came to a close, during which the same
questions arose. Opponents claimed that the bill was unnecessary, and that,
even if it passed, it would not make a difference. Still, we were able to
get it through. In many respects, the bill is considered model legislation.
Among other provisions, it included venue reform (so trial lawyers cannot
shop around for favorable courts) and caps on subjective noneconomic damages
(such as pain and suffering). Now, a year has passed since the
legislation took effect, and the Mississippi experience is instructive. Tort
reform works.
Prior to the legislation, Mississippi was known as the "jackpot justice
capital of America." The American Tort Reform Association had labeled
certain jurisdictions "judicial hellholes." A survey of more than 1,200
senior in-house counsels for the U.S. Chamber Commerce ranked Mississippi
50th in virtually every category of judicial system nationwide. Insurance
companies were fleeing the state. Others were refusing to write new
policies. The medical field was particularly strained: Liability insurance
was in many cases unaffordable, and in some cases unavailable. One year
later, the story is very different. Mass Mutual Insurance Group, St. Paul
Travelers, World Insurance Co. and Equitable Life Insurance Co. are
returning to Mississippi. State Farm Insurance eased its growth restrictions
for homeowners' insurance and lowered its rates on property insurance.
The Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi, which writes 60% of the
medical malpractice coverage for doctors in the state, had raised its rates
20% the year prior to the tort reform legislation. After its passage, MACM
did not raise its rates at all. "Those people who said tort reform would not
work and actively fought any civil justice reform," Mississippi Insurance
Commissioner George Dale said. "I think this indicates they were wrong."
MACM also recently announced an end to its moratorium on new business; it
also just declared it will cut its rates for 2006.
Insurance was becoming less available and less affordable prior to the
passage of the tort reform legislation. Now, the opposite is true. Some
plaintiff lawyers and some consumer groups still contend that tort reform
doesn't work--but it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that
when liability exposure is made predictable and governed by reasonable
rules, risk can be better assessed, and insurance companies are more likely
to offer coverage.
Gov. Haley Barbour attributes the successful recruitment of new business to
Mississippi to the lower cost of doing business in the state. Texatron has
invested $35 million and Kingsford Charcoal $20 million; we have coaxed back
Winchester Ammunition and its $3.5 million payroll, as well FedEx Ground, as
part of a $1.8 billion expansion.
Our reform package also virtually eliminated the mass-tort industry in
Mississippi. This change came about not only because the legislation
provided that venues for lawsuits must be established independently for each
plaintiff, but also because Mississippi Supreme Court decisions reinstated
the traditional rules of joinder of plaintiffs. These two changes went hand
in hand, since the process of passing tort reform (which lasted four years)
raised public awareness of the problem, which in turn affected judicial
elections. This has provided for a more balanced judiciary.
As a result of these procedural changes, pending mass-tort cases are being
split up. The cases of out-of-state plaintiffs are being dismissed, and the
cases of in-state plaintiffs are being transferred to the proper venues for
trial. Lawsuits in Mississippi are returning to what they are supposed to
be--and used to be--about: one plaintiff, or a very small group of
plaintiffs, suing a defendant, or a very small group of defendants, for a
single cause of action. Common sense has made a comeback.
Not surprisingly, the demise of mass-tort litigation has resulted in a
decrease in litigation costs. The CEO of one Mississippi company recently
told me that his company's legal bills were reduced by $70,000 a month as a
result of the reform. Litigation expense does not produce value for most
members of our society. It is merely a transaction cost in the transfer of
wealth to compensate injured persons. To be justified, the transfer process
must be fair.
Mississippi's mass-tort system was anything but fair, and in many cases it
resulted in patently unjustified awards. And people had lost confidence in
getting a fair hearing at the trial court level. There was no confidence
that the appellate courts would correct abuses. In essence, there was total
unpredictability. The sky was the limit on damages. There was even a
perception that fundamentals of the rule of law were being threatened. Since
the passage of tort reform and the changes implemented by judicial
decisions, both perception and reality have changed. We have begun to
restore credibility to Mississippi courts in the mind of the public and
business, and have thus restored trust to government in Mississippi in
general.
Since only a year has passed, the long-term consequences of tort reform
cannot be known. There are thousands of cases in the system still governed
by the old rules. There is enough information, however, to state
unequivocally that tort reform has made the Mississippi legal environment
more fair, more predictable and less expensive. For now, that is more than
enough.
Mr. Ross is a Mississippi state senator and chairman of the senate
judiciary A committee.
6....Modern
Physician.com
W.Va. med mal insurers seek rate cuts as lawsuits decline
August 12, 2005
West Virginia's two largest medical malpractice insurers are asking the
state Insurance Commission for permission to reduce their rates. The board
of not-for-profit West Virginia Physicians' Mutual Insurance Co., the
largest medical malpractice insurer in the state, voted Thursday to seek a
5% rate reduction, effective Jan. 1, said President David Rader. Woodbrook
Casualty Insurance, the state's largest private malpractice insurer, is
asking for a 3.9% decrease, effective Oct. 20.
The number of malpractice lawsuits has declined since the state Legislature
changed laws regarding medical malpractice lawsuits, starting in 2001, said
Bill Kenney, deputy insurance commissioner.
Rader said his company also is aggressively working with injured patients to
try to prevent lawsuits. For example, the insurer is encouraging physicians
to apologize for mistakes and are offering to pay for certain costs for
injured patients immediately, no questions asked, he said.
7...Atlanta
Business Chronicle
Experts: State should expect healthy influx of doctors
Tort reform expected to bring more specialists to Georgia
Lori Johnston
September 12, 2005
As she faces the challenge of recruiting physicians to
WellStar Health System, Dee Hammond has seen encouraging signs recently.
At a job fair in Texas, she noticed physicians completing their residency
were considering positions in Georgia. She's also had calls from physicians
working in states with medical malpractice crises interested in relocating
to Georgia. The state's new tort reform laws have given Georgia an
edge in trying to attract physicians, especially in high-demand specialty
areas like surgery and obstetrics, Hammond said.
The biggest provision affecting the medical field in the law was a cap
on noneconomic damages of $250,000, or $750,000 if there are multiple
defendants.
"We wouldn't be getting calls from Pennsylvania and Florida if we had
not had tort reform in Georgia," said Hammond, director of provider
services at WellStar.
Some doctors in Georgia already have seen a positive impact from the law,
which supporters hope will drive down the high cost of malpractice
insurance.
"Now we've got hope of some more doctors coming into the state," said Dr.
Kay Kirkpatrick, co-president of Resurgens Orthopaedics P.C.
Kirkpatrick said her insurer already has frozen rates and plans to
roll rates back if the law survives legal challenges..
Kirkpatrick also notes how tort reform laws passed in Texas in 2003 are
having an effect in that state, with the number of insurance carriers
growing from four to 22, and the largest insurer in Texas issuing a 16
percent rate reduction.
If Georgia's law withstands court challenges, Dr. Don Campbell, medical
director for Cobb Hospital and the
WellStar Physicians Group, expects to see more carriers entering the
Georgia market, driving down costs.
"I think it will make it easier for us to keep doctors in Georgia who train
here and easier for us to attract doctors to Georgia," he said.
If that happens, metro Atlanta may be able to fill the need for
obstetricians, neurosurgeons and other specialists by attracting them away
from states that have not yet passed tort reform, Campbell said. He expects
to see the influx of physicians by late 2006.
Another need in Georgia is for hospitalists, also known as inpatient
physicians, whose primary focus is the care of hospitalized patients.
Hammond said she has seen figures that indicate as many as 80 percent of
hospitals are recruiting for hospitalists.
WellStar has hospitalist programs at its Kennestone, Cobb and Paulding
hospitals and is establishing a program at its Douglas Hospital. Over the
next year, Hammond anticipates hiring 10 hospitalists and another 15 to 20
physicians.
8....Arkansas
Democrat Gazette
Arkansas medical malpractice rate slows
LITTLE ROCK — Doctors in Arkansas saw the smallest jump in medical
malpractice premiums this year, largely due to the ability of
insurance companies to balance their books after huge increases in previous
years, the state Insurance Department says.
State Volunteer Insurance Co., which covers about 75 percent of Arkansas
doctors who buy their own insurance, had a 5.5 percent increase in premiums
this year, down from a 13.6 percent increase in 2004, the department said in
an annual report required by a 2003 state law.
"It seems to go in waves," said Steve Williams, chief executive officer of
State Volunteer Mutual. "(Premiums) go up for a while and plateau, go up for
a while and plateau. It never really goes all the way back down."
The report said greater increases in the recent past allowed insurers to
balance their books in 2004 after years of losses. For every dollar
collected in premiums last year, malpractice insurers spent 97 cents in
claims. In 2003, insurers spent $1.32 for every dollar taken in.
Between 1999 and 2005, State Volunteer Mutual's malpractice premiums
for internal medicine shot up 240 percent. In 2004, the American
Medical Association labeled Arkansas one of 15 "crisis states," saying that
rising malpractice premiums and the lack of restrictions on the size of jury
awards in malpractice lawsuits were driving doctors out of the state.
But David Wroten, executive vice president of the Arkansas Medical Society,
said that hasn't happened.
"When (State Volunteer Mutual) only gives a 5 percent rate increase, no
one's going to go shopping for another carrier," he said. "A lot of states
have it a lot worse than we do."
Much of the increase came in 2002, after The St. Paul Cos. left the
malpractice market. The company insured 51 percent of Arkansas doctors. With
more claims, State Volunteer then raised premiums by 49 percent over the
course of the year and other insurers increased rates by as much as 97.5
percent.
St. Paul wasn't the only company to leave the market. In 1996, 81 companies
offered malpractice insurance in Arkansas, said Charlye Woodard, an
Insurance Department spokeswoman. Today there are six.
"The loss of even one more medical malpractice insurer will result in
significant declines in both availability and affordability of coverage for
the medical community," the department report said. The 3,100 internists
insured by State Volunteer now pay $6,100 annually for coverage, Williams
said. Doctors in many other states pay more, though.
In 2003, the state Legislature passed a law to limit punitive damages
in medical malpractice lawsuits and place tougher evidence requirements on
plaintiffs. The number of claims fell and insurance rate increases slowed.
But the Insurance Department says the law is too new to credit it with the
relatively small jump in medical malpractice premiums.
((Evidence from other states indicates that even a NEW law will help to
reduce premiums....of course, everyone understands that the cases which are
"in the hopper" aren't subject to the new laws and that it will take a few
years for the full effect to be felt....especially if there are possible
constitutional challenges....but I think this signals a positive trend for
Arkansas, due largely to medical liability reform and a cap on pain and
suffering...))
"Act 649 of 2003 has only been in effect since March 25, 2003, so it would
still be premature to expect it to have had a significant impact on rates,"
the report said.
An opponent of the 2003 law, lawyer Morgan E. "Chip" Welch of Little Rock
predicts the tort changes actually will have no effect on the behavior of
insurance companies.
"It doesn't affect the ability of insurance companies to charge an arm and a
leg for coverage," he said. "They do that because they can. They will raise
rates."
Please visit the Liability Update Weblog at:
http://journals.aol.com/rovspa/LiabilityUpdate/
If you would like to be added to or removed from the Liability Update
Information Network, or if you have information about yourself or a
colleague relocating, retiring early, giving up medicine, private practice
or curtailing services due to the medical liability crisis please email
ROVSPA@aol.com
|