Should the government reform tort law
…regarding medical liability making the laws tougher or weaker?
Should there be tort reform, and should it make it harder to hold the physician responsible for his/her poor care.
Should there be caps on reimbursement for pain and suffering, or should laws be made stricter, with increasing the possibility of real criminal repercussions for doctors’ mal-practice cases, which today are simply painted over with green.
Published by: Admin on September 30th, 2009 | Filed under Tort Laws
One Response to “Should the government reform tort law”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I’ve been thinking recently that an arbitration proceeding may make the most sense. It could be run by the AMA. Possibly you could have a 3 arbitrator panel consisting of a doctor, a lawyer, and a member of an organization representing patients. Hospitals and doctors could right now, with no change in the law at all, institute that policy for everything except emergency care, since arbitration agreements are binding. To institute that for emergency care would require a change in the law though.
This would not restrict the ability of people who have been harmed to collect an appropriate amount, but it would cut the costs associated with finding whether or not there has been malpractice and allow people to make such findings who are better equipped to evaluate good medical practice.
That should cut down on defensive medicine, which is the real expense associated with medical malpractice. Actual payouts are not at all expensive compared to the profits of malpractice insurance companies. Those profits dwarf litigation awards and are the main source of rising insurance premiums. In general, oligopolies and monopolies need to be better regulated and malpractice insurance companies are one example.