Bush says limiting lawsuits will save healthcare

[Katmae RN]

HMmmmm just wondering how you all feel about that theory. Bush says that lawyers are responsible for healthcare costs. I personally feel patients have the right to sue for malpractice. We've all heard horror stories of what our godlike docs have done to patients. I think the law keeps them accountable for what they do. And where would docs be without the nurses who catch the errors before they hurt the patient? Countless times i can recall calling a doc with an order for something the patient was allergic to. Also being the 24/7 monitors we are of the patients..how many times we point out critical things going on with their patients. The docs are crying cause they can't make enough money with insurance costs. I sayyy awwww suck it up and and only have one Mercedes in the driveway:rotfl:

[smk1, LPN]

i don't think stopping the actual lawsuits is appropriate. (people have the "right" to sue if they want), However tort reform by way of "capping" settlements and imposing penalties for "frivilous" lawsuits are excellent ideas. Now having said that, none of this matters a hill of beans if the insurance companies are still allowed to jack their rates up indiscriminately even after tort reforms. They need "caps" imposed on them as well if the public and the medical professionals are to reap any benefits from tort reform.

[gwenith, BSN, RN]

Do you think that establishing something like a health care ombudsman would help in this regard. First step bring the case to the ombudsman - the ombudsman's job would be to act as mediator in cases and then and only then if the case could not be mediated or if the case were of sufficient "weight" would it go to court. Under this system recompense would be set and capped. This would not stop real cases which need to go to court for any one of a number of reasons but just might stop the trivial and time wasting law suits that are clogging up the system and costing money not only to the health care system but to the courts as well.

[VickyRN, MSN, DNP, RN]

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.

I agree with Shay. We have turned the clock back now to "once a c-section, always a c-section" due to the threat of litigation. The high cost of malpractice insurance is driving doctors from all specialties (not just OB) OUT of North Carolina! Some patients (here in eastern NC) are driving 2 hours to get to an OB, and having their babies in the ED's of outlying hospitals (which are not ideally equipped for deliveries!) as a result of the shortage of doctors willing to deliver babies. The family practice doctors in the small rural community hospital in which I used to work, no longer deliver, due mainly to liability issues. The public is the ultimate loser, and their safey is being put at risk.

[VickyRN, MSN, DNP, RN]

Do you think that establishing something like a health care ombudsman would help in this regard. First step bring the case to the ombudsman - the ombudsman's job would be to act as mediator in cases and then and only then if the case could not be mediated or if the case were of sufficient "weight" would it go to court. Under this system recompense would be set and capped. This would not stop real cases which need to go to court for any one of a number of reasons but just might stop the trivial and time wasting law suits that are clogging up the system and costing money not only to the health care system but to the courts as well.

Sounds like a good idea. In NC, all it takes for anyone to sue anybody for ANY reason (getting tired of all the "any's") is $75!!!

[shay]

Fergus, I have worked NICU too. I know how expensive it is. And I am not saying the doc is always right. There have been times when I wanted to walk up to a pt. after a delivery and say, "here's a # for a lawyer, sue the *@#! out of that butcher."

I don't think people should have their right to sue taken away either. I think there needs to be a p&s award cap, as well as a "loser pays" system....where the loser in the case foots the bill for the court costs. ALL of the court costs.

Again, if you haven't been witness to it firsthand (lawsuit abuse, frivolous lawsuits, etc..), I can understand you not agreeing with tort reform. I assure you though, excessive litigation is a HUGE problem and needs to be reigned in. Stat.

I live in NC too, Vicky. I feel your pain, girlfriend. :rotfl:

[Q.]

100% agree with Shay. Part of the reason I left OB.

[tiliimnrn]

I agree with what Kerry said, make the lawyer's accountable. If they bring forth a frivolous lawsuit, make them pay a fine big enough so that they stop doing that..other then that, you know who's making the money, it's the CEO's and the companies they like to call HOSPITALS. We've been told for year's the reason they couldn't afford this or that is because money is sooooo tight. Well, I had a patient whose brother was a CPA for my hospitals company and she said he quit because he couldn't stand what was going on...he told her that they have sooo much money and they keep telling everyone that they don't have any money. Well, of course I believed her because just a few weeks after that they had an article in the paper about our companies over spending on things for the CEO's, benefits for CEO's, etc. This world has gotten so lopsided, and the rich get richer.

[Euskadi1946]

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: 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.

That's what the really big problem is Shay. There are so many good doctors out there who advocate for their patients and because of the bad ones, these good ones get really dinged too. They have to be twice as observant and careful. I've worked for some very good OB/Gyns and I've worked with some that I wouldn't let them deliver my cat!!!!

[James Huffman]

I would love to see the English system implemented here: if someone sues, and loses the case, they then have to pay for the defendant's legal costs. In other words, under our current system, the one suing has nothing to lose. Under the English system, they could certainly, but would at least have to consider that a lost case would cost them.

Another factor in high malpractice costs is that the rates tend to rise when interest rates are low. What is probably happening in such a situation (which we have right now) is that the insurance company, which can make more money off of investments when interest rates are high, makes less when the rates are low. To compensate, the companies raise their premiums.

In other words, changing the system is a good thing. But the answer to high malpractice premiums for physicians is not quite as simple as it seems.

[Antikigirl, ASN, RN]

In Oregon, we have a measure to cap non-economic rewards in medical law suits. I really thought this one would be a easy choice for me, but once I read the measure and arguments...I was suprised I was acutally torn! It is very complex, and I tried really hard to see who is going to really get the worse deal...sadly it really did seem to be the patient.

It is hard! I see this from both sides, and it is rather difficult to choose!

But I try to think...what can be done besides all this? That ombudsman idea was great! I also wonder if insurance companies would lower costs to individuals that use technology/professionals that can lessen error...like palm piliots for prescribing, computer documentation, have a said amount of staff per facility/office to cut down on errors, hiring consultants to overlook charting...things like this. Or even giving a lower cost if you have gone without error or complaints for a said period of time! I mean, car insurance gives you lower costs if you go through drivers ed, don't have a ticket or incident for a said period of time...why not???

I know it will be costly, but with the price of insurance being so high anyway...this seems to be more productive and proactive!

What do you think?

[rngreenhorn]

I agree with what Kerry said, make the lawyer's accountable. If they bring forth a frivolous lawsuit, make them pay a fine big enough so that they stop doing that..other then that, you know who's making the money, it's the CEO's and the companies they like to call HOSPITALS. We've been told for year's the reason they couldn't afford this or that is because money is sooooo tight. Well, I had a patient whose brother was a CPA for my hospitals company and she said he quit because he couldn't stand what was going on...he told her that they have sooo much money and they keep telling everyone that they don't have any money. Well, of course I believed her because just a few weeks after that they had an article in the paper about our companies over spending on things for the CEO's, benefits for CEO's, etc. This world has gotten so lopsided, and the rich get richer.

And who will police the lawyers? Putting the attorneys in charge of defining "frivolous" lawsuits is like putting the fox in charge of garding the hen house.

And why do so many people hate large companies and people who have money. I still believe that I am responsible for myself... (I would have a couple hundred dollars a month if I would stop drinking those damn lattes)

I believe this country provides more opportunities to "make it" than any other country on earth. If this is not the case, why are so many people trying to immigrate here? And the large companies and people who have the money are the employers. They are the ones paying the majority of the taxes and making the payrolls.

This is not a caste system... If one does not like his/her station in life, it is his/her right to change it. I worked for minimal wage for many years before deciding to go back to school and get a degree.

And there is no such thing as equality. Some people will have to work harder to overcome there station.

[roxannekkb]

It sounds nice to wrap up our healthcare problems in one neat little package, and put the blame on one group of people. Trial lawyers are at fault and if we just cap settlements, all of our other problems will go away.

Supporters of tort reform often point to California as a poster child, where tort reform was initiated. But what they conveniently ignore is that malpractice insurance premiums only stabilized once insurance reform laws were introduced. Tort reform, by itself, did nothing to control the skyrocketing rates of malpractice.

Healthcare reform is complex and lacking in any magical solution, and certainly, the silver bullit does not exist. Instituting laws such as requiring plaintiff's to be responsible for court costs, whether or not they win, will defer some from frivilous lawsuits. Holding lawyers in contempt for taking on ridiculous suits in the first place is another. Reining in the cost of a medical education is an issue that is also conveniently ignored. How about taking on the price gouging by the pharmaceutical companies in this country, or their practice of trying to extend patents so as to keep the competition from offering lower prices? The list goes on and on and on...

I agree that many settlements are ridiculous, but then, on the other hand, capping a settlement for a person who has suffered severe damage at the hands of a truly incompetent doctor or hospital is not fair either. And capping settlements without reforming our insurance industry does not require insurance companies to lower their premiums, or stop them from periodically raising them. In essence, what Bush is proposing is the best thing that insurance companies could ever hope for. Their payments will be limited, and yet they are still free to conduct business any way they please.