According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, the malpractice system in the United States, “…is an international embarrassment, with too many healthcare providers sued by too many patients for too little reason.”
Although malpractice suits are intended to protect patients from doctors who are negligent, frivolous lawsuits have resulted in high costs and complicated systems for malpractice insurance. Doctors may pass at least some of this cost on to patients in order to pay for their medical malpractice insurance.
“There are a slew of problems with the American malpractice system,” Peter Ubel writes in Forbes, “Careful studies have shown that lawsuits do not effectively target poor medical care and many a physician’s career has been unjustly ruined by frivolous lawsuits.”
As per Attorney for Medical Malpractice in Fort Smith, Arkansas, that’s why there have been many calls in the last few years for major reforms to the way that malpractice suits work. Especially after the recent Affordable Care Act failed to address the issue directly. Experts assume that resolving the issue of frivolous lawsuits will allow for better, easier care while also reducing costs. This should produce a win-win situation for both doctors and patients. But there is doubt that these reforms would actually work.
Do Reforms Reduce Cost?
Forbes presents evidence that reforms do not actually benefit overall healthcare costs by comparing states that had undergone malpractice reforms: Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina. In Texas, post reforms, healthcare costs actually rose compared to states who had passed no reforms, and in Georgia and South Carolina Costs remained relatively the same to other states.
Medical Xpress recently reported that there is little evidence to suggest that caps to malpractice suits might actually deter high healthcare costs. According to their article, David Hyman a law professor at Illinois reported that costs of medical malpractice insurance are “pretty modest” when compared to the amount of money spent overall on healthcare in the United States. He contends that reforming malpractice might have some benefits and it might have some negative consequences, but it in the end it is not a big enough issue to make major changes to the entire system.
Without the incentive of reducing healthcare costs while also improving care, malpractice reforms in every state could become a very hard sell to voters and legislators.
Are There Alternatives?
Medpage today has cited evidence that this is the perfect time for alternative solutions. Because malpractice suits have lessened overall since the early 200s, right now is a great time for doctors and lawyers to experiment with alternatives that might be less costly to doctors, keep patients feeling comfortable, and all without having to make major reforms.
“Those alternative approaches include communication-and-resolution programs, pre-suit notification, apology laws, safe-harbor legislation, state-facilitated dispute resolution, judge-directed negotiation, and administrative compensation systems,” med page reports.
The reasoning that now is the perfect time to experiment with the current system and create alternatives to both major reforms and traditional malpractice lawsuits could be enough to sway many doctors and patients to come to a better understanding that is better financially for all involved. In the meantime, doctors will need to continue to protect their interests.
