In this article we're going to look at the ugly political side of malpractice which is most likely the main reason that malpractice laws are not toughened.
This article is focusing mainly on the problem that they are having in PA in the good old United States, the worst country for malpractice suits in the whole world.
Pennsylvania is in the midst of a terrible health crisis, including medical malpractice which is at the top of the list. The legislature is constantly debating remedies to the problem but nobody is coming up with a solution. The main problem is that there isn't enough data to determine if a cap should be put on malpractice claims, the amount of money one can get from a claim. Plus they're not even sure if putting on this cap is going to lower insurance premiums or not as that is out of their control.
The most recent proposal was to put a $250,000 cap on any malpractice claim for what they term "pain and suffering." Because medical malpractice premiums are so high in this state it is believed that is the reason why so few new doctors are setting up shop in PA and why others are actually leaving the state. There are actually documented cases of premiums going up from $20,000 to $60,000 to cover malpractice insurance in just one year and that's for people who have never been sued.
Sam Marshall, a lobbyist representing the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, predicted that malpractice premiums would go down by about 20 percent if caps were put in place on malpractice suits. But there is no real evidence to support this claim, not with premiums going up for doctors who have never been sued.
The opposite end of the argument insists that medical malpractice premiums wouldn't go down by more than one half of one percent, according to Howard P. Weiss, a former insurance executive. He said since very few pain and suffering awards even come close to $250,000 the cap would have little to no effect on those claims.
The main problem though seems to be between republicans and democrats in congress. The trial lawyers are the republican's enemies. The republicans want to embarrass them because they support the democrats. The democrats, on the other hand, want to stick it to the doctors who mostly give their money to the republicans. So in English, the democrats who are against the doctors want to see them pay, thus have no desire to see a cap on pain and suffering cases. As far as they are concerned, malpractice premiums can go through the roof. The republicans, of course, take the opposite stance. This back and forth, in the meantime, basically brings all progress to a standstill because nobody can get any laws passed.
If the two parties would just put their partisan differences aside, something they are unable to do on many issues like social security and Medicare, then maybe a solution to this problem could be found.
At the rate the two parties are going, this is unlikely.
Listed below are more articles related to the above article from the "Malpractice" article category.
People interested in the above article "Malpractice And Politics" are also interested in the related articles listed below:
Physicians and nurses are expected to have the knowledge training and experience required to detect and react to fetal distress. They are also supposed to dedicate suitable attention to following their patient during labor and delivery. Should they fail to do so their actions might contribute to considerable harm to the unborn baby. In such cases they might be liable for medical malpractice.
The loss of a baby in childbirth is a painful experience for a parent. This article looks at a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that a physician ridiculed the mother for seeking a C-section once she realized she was unable to deliver naturally and them decided to employ a vacuum extractor but did so incorrectly and caused the death of her child.
Men have a 1 in 6 lifetime chance of having prostate cancer. If detected and treated while in the early stages prostate cancer has a roughly 97 per cent 5-year survival rate. If not discovered until it has metastasized, there is presently no known cure. This article considers the issue of medical malpractice arising out of a delayed diagnosis by looking at a published settlement in a case which claimed that a delay in diagnosis by his physician led to the metastasis of the plaintiff's prostate cancer.
Normally physicians acknowledge that raised PSA levels create a need to advise the patient and to do more testing to rule out prostate cancer. Should the patient has prostate cancer not telling the patient and allowing time to go by absent diagnostic testing risks allowing the cancer to spread. If this occurs the patient may have a medical malpractice case against the doctor.
Being informed by a doctor that one just has hemorrhoids and that one does not have to be concerned about blood in the stool can be very comforting. But unless the doctor has ruled out\eliminated the possibility of colon cancer, the patient might not uncover that he or she has it before it is too late. This article looks at how a delayed diagnosis because a physician erroneously assumed that blood was from hemorrhoids might amount to treatment that does not meet the standard of care and result in a medical malpractice case.
People recognize that paramedics lack the level of knowledge, training, or experience as physicians. Yet, when they do not notice signs that a patient is in a medical emergency (such as a pregnant woman experiencing a placental abruption) that needs fast transportation to a hospital, they might be liable for malpractice.People expect that when there is a medical emergency paramedics will have the knowledge, training and skill to correctly deal with the emergency.This means that they will be able to act fast and appropriately. It also means providing care that meets the applicable medical standard of care.A failure to do so can result in a malpractice lawsuit.
Parents typically assume that their kids will be safe from motor vehicle accidents as they head to school. However, possibly they ought to not be so sure. Look at an actual matter in which a car entered a mid-block crosswalk that was adjacent to a high school, hit a fifteen year old student who was crossing the street and who sustained a traumatic brain injury. The matter resulted in a jury verdict in excess of $9.0 million.
