Bush says limiting lawsuits will save healthcare

shay · Oct 20, 2004

Well, I work OB, and I agree w/Bush. Working in the number one specialty for litigation kinda does that to you......

When Bush said during one of the debates that OB's are being forced to practice "defensive medicine," I thought he hit the nail on the head. Notice how the c-section rate is on the rise and VBACs are on the decline? How much medical intervention there is in L&D all the time? Wonder why that happens? Because docs (and nurses) are terrified of being SUED. OB malpractice insurance is through the roof, and docs are leaving the field because of it. Take Nevada, for instance. The OB shortage has reached crisis levels there. There are hardly any practicing OB's in Nevada because of skyrocketing malpractice costs.

Tort reform is necessary, and not to help doctors "make money," but to help them just continue to practice medicine.

Katmae RN · Oct 20, 2004

I respect your opinion and you could very well be right about OB/GYN's. But their malpractice insurance is due to litigation. Why are so many juries finding these docs accountable for damages done to an infant/mother. Most medical mistakes are paid for behind the scenes and we never hear of them..but insurance goes up for the docs because they have lost suits in court i bet. I dunno..which came first the chicken or the egg kinda thing.

fergus51 · Oct 20, 2004

I'm also an OB/NICU nurse and I don't think limiting lawsuits will be a silver bullet. I think the perception is more important than the reality. Doctors won't stop practising CYA medicine if tort reform is introduced and insurance companies aren't going to lower malpractice insurance rates either. Even in the most litigious areas of medicine, most of my colleagues have never been involved in a lawsuit. Knock on wood, neither have I.

shay · Oct 20, 2004

Well, I have seen quite a few lawsuits in my area....fortunately (knock on wood), none involving me personally. About 1/2 of them are complete and total b.s.. And while I don't think tort reform is a "silver bullet," I think it is very much needed. As far as this:

Why are so many juries finding these docs accountable for damages done to an infant/mother.

Because, quite frankly, the general public is full of idiots. It's not nice to say, but it's the truth. People (family members, friends, acquaintances) have come to me and asked me all sorts of questions about childbirth, all indignant about something "that doctor" did or didn't do, which was perfectly reasonable and routine, but because their primary OB "education" comes from watching "A Baby Story," they think otherwise. It's gotten to the point that on my unit, when we had a lawyer come inservice us about EMTALA/etc., he basically said that any patient that we discharge having CONTRACTIONS, be it false labor or otherwise, could sue. What a bunch of CRAP.

Fergus, I'm glad you haven't seen the worst of it out there. I have, unfortunately, and I've seen many fine physicians dragged through the courts over completely ridiculous lawsuits. It makes me angry.

LaurieCRNP2002, MSN, RN, APRN · Oct 20, 2004

I think there needs to be some tort reform but I also think that doctors need to stop protecting incompetent colleagues. I read somewhere (and I'll concede, this was a while ago) that a small percentage of doctors are responsible for a large percentage of the lawsuits that are filed---in other words, the same docs keep getting themselves in trouble. By the same token, lawyers need to hold each other accountable for taking frivolous cases. While I definitely agree that patients should have the right to sue for really egregious errors that cause harm, something has to be done to rein in the outrageous jury awards that are sometimes handed out.

Just my $.02 worth :)

Laurie

allnurses Guide · Oct 20, 2004

Shay, I agree with you about the public - think about highly publicized trials (OJ Simpson anyone?). Unfortunately people are woefully misinformed about OB and medicine in general.

Tort reform is not the magic bullet for health care problems but it is a large part and needs to be addressed. And I believe we are talking about the "pain and suffering" part that goes into multi-millions of dollars. That needs to be capped, definitely.

I work OB too.

http://www.edwardswatch.org/

steph

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Oct 20, 2004

This is one time I agree with Bush and the people who want to limit lawsuits and/or impose caps on punitive damages. We currently have a measure on the ballot in my state limiting 'pain and suffering' awards to $500,000, and I support that.......we are losing doctors of all specialties, but especially OB-GYNs and neurosurgeons due to the high cost of malpractice insurance and jury awards in the millions of dollars. I'm all for getting rid of incompetent practitioners, but punishing the good ones with outrageous insurance rates isn't right. I don't think this is a 'silver bullet' that will cure the system's ills, either, but it's a place to start.

UTRN2005 · Oct 20, 2004

I'm not exactly sure of the details of Bush's plan but if it's like what they passed in TX a couple of years ago then I do know a little bit about it. Our laws do NOT limit a patient's right to sue or even capped a majority of possible damages. The only thing it capped was pain and suffering, which is often a ridiculously high number anyway. Pain and suffering is a very subjective category. You can still gain payment for real damages i.e. medical bills, lost wages, etc. The pt will still receive damages for real losses that have concrete numbers, they can even still receive some pain and suffering damages. It just limits those damages to (I believe, but I could be wrong) $250,000. I don't think this will in any way solve the problems in healthcare, but I do think that it will help some. BTW Texas OB/Gyns were also starting to stop practiing OB due to high malpractice insurance rates.

Katmae RN · Oct 20, 2004

I dunno..i can't say i have seen a trial where a doc/patient go to court. Maybe is because they choose juries that are not in the medical field, that the patient wins. Yes it is sad how we practice medicine with always legality in our minds. But what about patients who's wrong limb was amputated, or killed by the wrong blood, i've seen some patients who's care was overlooked, resulting in some pretty nasty endings. Not sure what the price of a life or limb should be myself. But then we heard of the mega millions lawsuit of someone burned by a cup of coffee from McDonald's and was sickened by it. Enjoy hearing your opinions, thanks

fergus51 · Oct 20, 2004

I don't disagree that pain and suffering $ should be limited. I just doubt that we'll see malpractice insurance rates drop or CYA medicine decrease because of it. I mean, Shay do you know how much it costs to provide care for a kid who is massively brain damaged from birth asphyxia? I don't but I'm betting that it's a LOT, so even without pain and suffering added into the total we're still looking at a HUGE settlement. Plus, it does nothing to adress nuisance cases, since it will still be cheaper for them to settle rather than go to court. If that's the case then we'll still have expensive malpractice insurance and CYA medicine. I just don't see how it will really change much.

Nurseboy1 · Oct 20, 2004

Hey Katmae, you say you constantly catch errors from the docs? Well, isn't that our job? I try to personally ensure the safety of all of my patients, which includes double-checking all the new and previous orders for allergies, etc. Patient safety is everyone's responsibility.

And yes I have to agree that tort reform is severely needed. Absurdly large awards for so called "pain and suffering" have to be capped. If award amounts are limited, there will be a decreased amount that the insurance companies have to pay, which (may) ultimately result in lower malpractice premiums.

just my 0.02

Ben