The Myths of Medical Malpractice “Reform” and Obama’s Health Insurance Plan–Part I

Last evening President Obama made a final plea for his health insurance plan before a joint session of Congress.

One of his proposals is an exploration into so-called “medical malpractice reform.”  Some critics of his plan have sought much broader “reform”.  Both sides claim that “reform” will reduce medical costs. 

Over a series of posts I shall seek to “set the record straight” on the myths of medical malpractice.   As compared to most of the talking heads on television and print, I have some experience with medical malpractice and the civil justice system.

Myth I–Medical Malpractice Reform Means Improving the System of Everyone

No one is against reform.  Reform means to change something for the better.

However, medical malpractice reform means limiting the rights of people injured by medical negligence.  The beneficiaries of reforms are on defendant side of the lawsuit, i.e., doctors and hospitals.  There is nothing offered to the injured plaintiff.   Indeed, recoveries would be fewer and smaller.

Here are some of the “reform” proposals:

  • Limiting damages for pain and suffering to $250,000; 
  • Creating special medical malpractice courts or panels decide cases;  these panels would be made-up of doctors rather than regular people who serve on our juries;
  • Having the loser pays the winning side’s costs; and 
  • Total elimination of  medical malpractice cases.

I have no doubt that these proposals would save money.  Indeed, in eliminating all medical malpractice cases there would be a great savings.  Doctors and hospitals would not have to pay for malpractice insurance.  After all, who wants to pay for insurance?  

However, “reform” would carry a heavy price.  First, we would be creating a special set of rules giving a separate class of the population more rights than others.   Our society maintains that a negligent person should be responsible for his wrongdoing.  This would create an exemption for doctors and hospitals.   Second, in eliminating or restricting malpractice recoveries, a doctor or hospital doing harm would have little financial incentive (or fear) to make sure that proper care is given.   Again, this goes against a basic tenet of our civil justice system that a wrongdoer should pay for his negligent conduct so as to make the injured party “whole” again.

We should not call proposed changes in medical malpractice “reform”.  It is a rolling-back of the rights of the people.

Mark E. Seitelman, 9/10/09,  


5 Responses to The Myths of Medical Malpractice “Reform” and Obama’s Health Insurance Plan–Part I

  1. […] Myth that “Reform” Will Create Savings By Mark Seitelman As we explored in Parts I, II, and III, there are many myths of medical malpractice “reform”  in the health […]

  2. JimmyBean says:

    I don’t know If I said it already but …This blog rocks! I gotta say, that I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks, 🙂

    A definite great read..Jim Bean

  3. […] our prior posts here.  See also our prior posts on the medical malpractice and Obamacare at I, II, III, and […]

  4. […] malpractice “reform” is an issue in the health insurance debate.  See our prior post, Part I, on the myth that “medical malpractice reform” is a change for the better for […]

  5. […] malpractice lawsuit “reform” in order to lower healthcare costs.  Prior posts, Parts I and II, discuss the myths of medical malpractice […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: