Medical Tort Reforms wreaked havoc among the medical arena and at the House of Senates. It is one of the most debatable bill, and the longest,to find solutions on cost nd emotional reduction of alleged medical malpractice. Medical Tort Reforms are acts ratified by state legal justice procedures to correct the existing non-legal system of medical malpractice, to establish limitations on the litigation for both the claimant and the defendant and to apportion cost of damages for the medical negligence.
Tort reforms are implemented because they provide for reasonably priced healthcare services, encouraged medical practitioners to transcend into once-medical-malpractice-hotspots and encourage students into taking up medicine and its subsequent specializations and to espouse early retirement and ban physicians from performing certain delicate procedures . In medical malpractice claims, there are two parties involve: the plaintiff or the patient and the defendant, the medical practitioner or healthcare provider (e. g.
doctors, dentists, caregivers, therapists). Malpractice claims are not limited to physicians alone, as illustrated in Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas v Bush (122 S. W. 3d 835, Texas, 2003), which includes non-physicians (e. g. nurses) liable for negligent acts performed. In the court, negligent acts performed by nurses cannot be justified on following the commands of their superiors. For a successful claim, the claimant must incur damages or injury brought about by the breach of duty of the hospital or the medical practitioner involved.
A firm connection between injury as a resultant of negligent act is established with the support from an expert testimony. In the absence of such element, there is no basis for malpractice claims even if medical neglect was involved. The standard of care is questioned during the technicalities of legal proceedings and compensatory and punitive damages are decided by the verdict at the end of proceedings. This does not end here though; the claimant can re-appeal for higher or lower court in case of judgment dissatisfaction.
Since the case involve is medical malpractice, expert testimonies or reports are implicated and qualified during the legal proceedings to make the claim more viable. The deviation of standard care of the defendant or the medical practitioner in question must be certified by a qualified expert in the corresponding field . Year 2000 marked the prominence of medico-legal cases usually involving insurance costs and negligence lawsuits. Bush was very insistent in pushing bills that would reform the health situations of the federal state.
2006 reform activity was active in proposing new bills and programs that would modify that of 2005. Since 2005 tort reforms are more traditional by character, new bills are added to catch up with the change in economy as well as demand of the insurance policies. There was an increase attention given to insurance requirement of report from medical malpractice insurance providers and premium rate control. Older bills regarding malpractices include (1) delimitation of noneconomic damage awards (2) expert witness standard (3) lawyer’s fee, and (4) denial of apology statements from defendant .
In the consideration of the medical malpractice law implementation success, several considerations must be mulled over. The bill should correspond to the health need of, at most, large number of individuals (or the general public); should consider the effect on medical practitioners, medical clients, health plans and interested parties; and should reflect on the least psychological and emotional trauma it would bring on both parties. The legislators should strive to find a bill that would provide the unification of needs of the current health mantra and provide for a stable balance on all parties involved.
Target shooting problems should be foremost. The liability system of medical malpractice may be long and extensive but several researches have shown that the system may not actually realized its objective but instead, the results would turn out to be opposite of what is expected. Instead of attaining the primary goal of the system—- just compensation for victims of medical malpractices and improve medical malpractices, there is thwarting of results to an unequal opportunity to healthcare insurance brought about by its very high cost and an obstruction to health care access.
The medical malpractice bill focuses on the victims of negligent malpractices but it may have ceased to think about the effect of the bill on rural residents as well as those individuals with very low incomes. The last years have been a witness to increase cost of medical litigation leading to higher cost of insurance premiums. Excessive litigation would result indirectly to doctor’s fee inflation and lesser chance of the poor to medical care.
The reform that would yield significant benefits for the general public would be improvement of healthcare units, target shooting medical errors and reduction, reduction of healthcare cost, increase annual savings for the federal government by seven million dollars, prevent migration of doctors from high litigation states and improve access to healthcare services for the needy . Proper implementation of medical tort reform can actually paved the way for better medical development in the state level.
Several state reviews showed that proper implementation can lead to cost reduction of medical malpractice insurance (like in the case of California) if and only if certain impositions are followed. A major point to this would be the establishment of cap on noneconomic awards and a mandatory collateral offset rule . If this be the case then, savings can be generated from the medical insurance and court penal. The normal assumption is that the grieved parties from the medical malpractice take legal action against negligent physicians on their injuries on the grounds of “breach of duty.
” This is inline with the normal argumentative procedures of the current system. But in practice, this just compensation is ineffective in the manner that most lawsuits are bogus; the connection between the damage and the medical practice is pre-fabricated in an effort to extort money from the medical practitioner. Others would have personal vendetta in their claims. Justice, unfortunately, can be twisted around the finger. Analysis demonstrates that about 80 % of these medical lawsuit cases arising from injuries are not linked to medical malpractice. Only about 15 % to 17% are actually estimated to stem from negligence.
Also, only 3% of these victims would actually file legal responsibility claims against medical practitioners . Gleaning from this data, there is an assumption that majority of the doctors who were filed lawsuits against are mostly innocent and only a small fraction of the claims are actually guilty of the illegal act. The brunt of the penalty would fall to the innocent doctors and most of the true victims would be uncompensated for their injuries. The system in actuality would actually cater to castigating and collecting penalties from non-negligent physicians.
There are also psychological damages parlayed to the non-guilty party as well as financial and the threat to doctors’ reputation of lawsuit is always probable. Financial losses in the form of attorney fees and other brouhahas associated with the court are common for both parties but in totality, the innocent party or the performer of the non-negligent act is at disadvantage. Slide rule technique should be employed for the attorney’s fee or their fractions in the damage reparations. This is to avoid the exorbitant fees imposed by lawyers, as e Much is at stake every time the claimant files for a lawsuit against medical practitioners.
Aside from the danger of forfeit of licensure or permit, the stigma brought about the case is much worse. Finance, although hefty sums are usually involved, is minute compared to this. Reputation, unlike finance, is difficult to salvage after all. Also the aftereffect of the trial or the case may lead to distorted relationship between the client and his/her doctor especially if the client involved is a regular. The locals are also discriminant of the doctors who have been filed with lawsuit against and at worst situation, may brand them as whitewash if the court turns in favor of them.
In summary, the benefits and drawbacks on the side of the claimant and the defendant should be assessed by the statesman in the preponderance of medical reform bill. Pre-trial and post-trial effects should also be considered but the main factor to still be considered is its effect on the general healthcare.
Bibliography
Beaty, T. P. “Governor Approves Medical Malpractice Tort Reform. ” [ November 2007 ] online at http://library. findlaw. com/1999/Dec/1/130532. html Kessner, K. “ Tort Reform: Medical Malpractice Crisis. ” [ November 2007 ] online at http://law. gsu. edu/thedocket/Nov02/tort_reform. htm