Bush pushes for limit to medical malpractice awards
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
George Bush has announced that he is to ask Congress to impose strict limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, saying that doctors "should be focused on fighting illnesses, not on fighting lawsuits."
President Bush made his announcement in Madison County, Illinois, which a coalition of business and professional groups recently named as the best place in the United States for plaintiffs to file and win civil lawsuits.
Mr Bush proposed that Congress should set a limit of $250 000 (?34 000; �191 000) for non-economic damages, such as "pain and suffering." The House of Representatives has repeatedly passed bills to limit awards in malpractice cases. The bills have all died in the US Senate, but the newly gained Republican majority, with Senator Bill Frist as its leader, means they could now pass.
The Bush administration likes to cite the high expense of medical malpractice as a factor in ballooning healthcare costs, but a non-partisan analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that malpractice costs represented less than 2% of healthcare costs in 2002.
Dennis Kelly, an American Insurance Association spokesman, warned, "We have not promised price reductions with tort reform."
Studies by the Kaiser Foundation and Harvard Medical School found that reducing malpractice jury awards ranked 11th on a 12 item scale that people thought should be priorities for the president and Congress. Three in five people said that malpractice lawsuits were a very important factor in causing higher healthcare costs, just less than the 63% who mentioned high profits made by drug companies and insurance companies. Seventy two per cent supported legislation to require an independent specialist to review cases before they go to trial, and 63% favoured a cap on awards for pain and suffering.
Last July, referring to California抯 30 year old law to cap damage awards at $250 000, Dr Alan Woodward, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said, "Obviously, this cap on non-economic damages is effective, as this study shows," echoing a judgment by Dianne Feinstein, Democrat senator for California.
Dr Donald Palmisano, immediate past president of the American Medical Association, pointed out that most medical liability claims—almost 70%—do not result in any payments but still cost an average of $90 000 to defend successfully.
Senator Edward Kennedy said, "The president抯 medical malpractice plan is nothing but a shameful shield for drug companies and health maintenance organisations that hurt people through negligence."
In 1999, the US Institute of Medicine reported that one study showed that as many as 98 000 Americans were affected by medical errors each year, of whom only 2% sued (BMJ 1999;319:1519).
An editorial in the New York Times (2005 Jan 9:A12) summed up the complexity of the problem: "Instead of fixating on an idea that would do little to solve anything but the health care industry抯 desire for fewer big court awards, Congress should push for a wide range of demonstration projects aimed at solving the malpractice problem by actually cutting down on malpractice."(Florida Fred Charatan)
President Bush made his announcement in Madison County, Illinois, which a coalition of business and professional groups recently named as the best place in the United States for plaintiffs to file and win civil lawsuits.
Mr Bush proposed that Congress should set a limit of $250 000 (?34 000; �191 000) for non-economic damages, such as "pain and suffering." The House of Representatives has repeatedly passed bills to limit awards in malpractice cases. The bills have all died in the US Senate, but the newly gained Republican majority, with Senator Bill Frist as its leader, means they could now pass.
The Bush administration likes to cite the high expense of medical malpractice as a factor in ballooning healthcare costs, but a non-partisan analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that malpractice costs represented less than 2% of healthcare costs in 2002.
Dennis Kelly, an American Insurance Association spokesman, warned, "We have not promised price reductions with tort reform."
Studies by the Kaiser Foundation and Harvard Medical School found that reducing malpractice jury awards ranked 11th on a 12 item scale that people thought should be priorities for the president and Congress. Three in five people said that malpractice lawsuits were a very important factor in causing higher healthcare costs, just less than the 63% who mentioned high profits made by drug companies and insurance companies. Seventy two per cent supported legislation to require an independent specialist to review cases before they go to trial, and 63% favoured a cap on awards for pain and suffering.
Last July, referring to California抯 30 year old law to cap damage awards at $250 000, Dr Alan Woodward, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said, "Obviously, this cap on non-economic damages is effective, as this study shows," echoing a judgment by Dianne Feinstein, Democrat senator for California.
Dr Donald Palmisano, immediate past president of the American Medical Association, pointed out that most medical liability claims—almost 70%—do not result in any payments but still cost an average of $90 000 to defend successfully.
Senator Edward Kennedy said, "The president抯 medical malpractice plan is nothing but a shameful shield for drug companies and health maintenance organisations that hurt people through negligence."
In 1999, the US Institute of Medicine reported that one study showed that as many as 98 000 Americans were affected by medical errors each year, of whom only 2% sued (BMJ 1999;319:1519).
An editorial in the New York Times (2005 Jan 9:A12) summed up the complexity of the problem: "Instead of fixating on an idea that would do little to solve anything but the health care industry抯 desire for fewer big court awards, Congress should push for a wide range of demonstration projects aimed at solving the malpractice problem by actually cutting down on malpractice."(Florida Fred Charatan)