The policy behind tort reform is an attempt to balance the interests of patients harmed by medical negligence and the interests of physicians who are increasingly burdened with high insurance premiums and the threat of possible lawsuits. Patients should be made as "whole" as possible if harmed by medical negligence; however, doctors should not be priced out of their profession by exorbitant premiums that become disincentives to practice. Additionally, the threat of lawsuits causes some doctors to practice "defensive medicine" whereby they order unnecessary tests to shield them from possible litigation. In the end, these additional tests are passed on to the patients or their insurers.
Increased Premiums
According to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums for medical liability rose on average by 15 percent between 2000 and 2002; increases during that period were even greater for certain specialties: 22 percent for obstetricians/gynecologists and 33 percent for internists and general surgeons. The increases arise from insurers attempting to offset large medical malpractice payouts in prior years. Evidence shows that states with restricted liability have lower medical malpractice premiums.
Premiums have also increased because insurers have to safeguard their shareholders' investments and in the last decade, they have seen a decrease in profits.
Increased Payouts
The increase in awards has risen since 1986 where the average was around $95,000. In 2002, that average had risen to $320,000, an annual growth rate of about eight percent.
Legislative Movement to Cap Damages
In 2003, the Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills to limit medical malpractice awards, and consequently lower medical premiums. Their reasoning was that increased premiums would cause physicians to stop practicing, limiting overall healthcare to patients. Still the effect of lower premiums is minimal as malpractice costs account for only 2% of total healthcare expenditures.
Opponents of Damage Caps
Although proponents argue economic efficacy in implementing caps, opponents assert that damage caps simply protect negligent doctors and deprive harmed patients fair compensation, and in cases of gross negligence, their rightful punitive damages. Opponents also argue that jurors should be allowed to assess damages on a case by case without arbitrary legislative interference.
Large Malpractice Damages
Although most payouts are modest, some juries have awarded large malpractice damages in particularly egregious cases of negligence. In Massachusetts, a jury awarded $40 million in a case where an Dr. Halladay, an obstetrician, delayed a Caesarean section which subsequently led to a baby's brain damage. In Illinois, a jury awarded over $15 million in the case Elda Heng, etc. vs. Rush University, et al. where a woman was left in a vegetative state because the doctor used a device that was not FDA-approved.
Find an Attorney
Damage caps vary from state to state and in some cases, apply only to punitive damages. Despite malpractice caps, courts and juries still seek to provide restitution to a patient harmed by medical malpractice. If you have been harmed, you should seek the counsel of an experienced attorney to determine your state laws regarding caps and to estimate the compensation that is due to you.
