Good news from Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Malpractice Cases Decline Further
The number of medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania declined again in 2007, according to statistics released today.
There were 1,617 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in 2007, according to the state Supreme Court. That’s down from 1,693 in 2006 and 2,903 in 2002, the year before legal changes intended to prevent frivolous lawsuits took effect.
The legal changes require lawyers filing malpractice cases to obtain a certificate of merit from a medical professional, saying the medical care that prompted the lawsuits was outside acceptable standards.
They also put an end to “venue shopping,” a practice by which lawyers who file malpractice cases would try to put them in front of juries in Philadelphia, where jurors are known for ruling against doctors and hospitals.
In 2007, 153 medical malpractice cases were heard by juries, which ruled in favor of the health care provider about 83 percent of the time, the court said.
In a news release, Chief Justice Ronald Castille said the data show the decline in medical malpractice cases is not temporary and that they reflect a sustained response to the 2003 changes. [read the rest]
Pretty cool. You can find other versions of the story here and here. The interpretation of the injuryboard.com blog was kind of interesting:
Medical Malpractice Cases Decline — No Need for “Tort Reform”
Those who favor restricting the rights of those harmed by careless doctors have one less weapon to use in their PR campaign. The latest figures just released by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court show that the number of medical malpractice cases have been declining over the past three years. Those who feel doctors should be held personal responsible for the harms they cause are vindicated by these findings. Most of the PR from the doctors has not withstood the scrutiny of careful analysis. The solution is to weed from the profession those doctors who cause the most harm, not restrict the rights of those who have been harmed.
Kind of a strange mixture here. I’m pretty sure that before the 2003 reforms were put in place, that the “PR from the doctors” included the claim that many medical malpractice suits were not justified but were being pursued by lawyers who didn’t have to run the case by a real medical professional to look at the merits of the case. The “PR” probably also included the claim that “venue shopping” was allowing frivolous lawsuits. So I’m not sure Pennsylvania is exactly the PR win for the attorneys that it is portrayed as.
But if something other than monetary caps on damages is sufficient for reforming the medical system, time will tell. We have different states trying different things. Texas has caps and Pennsylvania has other reforms. It is possible that this diversity is a good thing and will give us the information we need.
What we want, after all, like the post says, is for incompetent doctors to be weeded out. What we don’t want is a system that views doctors as lottery tickets and thus imposes irrational fears and irrational costs upon them so that they have no way to predict what sort of behavior will be penalized. Otherwise, we’ll get costly defensive medicine and a shortage of good doctors–which in many cases is what is happening now.
1 Comment
October 17, 2009 at 4:46 am
The rest of the Texas story.
So what happened in Texas. Basically Governor Bush passed tort reform in 1995 but also prevented insurance companies from raising premiums for five years. So in 2001 insurance rates went up over 100% again prompting cries that we need tort reform.
http://www.krld.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2215113
What is interesting is that I read a study that said 85% of the people believe we need tort reform. If that is the case then why do these 85% that are on trials not throw out the frivolous suits? Is the common man stupid and only the experts correct?