/
Medical Malpractice Reform Medical Malpractice Reform

Medical Malpractice Reform - PowerPoint Presentation

phoebe-click
phoebe-click . @phoebe-click
Follow
367 views
Uploaded On 2018-03-13

Medical Malpractice Reform - PPT Presentation

An Overview Pamela A Mixon Esq Jeff Rogers MD JD Counsel Counsel SCPMG SCPMG Add cartoon here Historical Background of Medical Malpractice Medical malpractice is a type of tort law known as negligence ID: 649199

medical malpractice damages litigation malpractice medical litigation damages patient claims laws health care compensation payments liability safety physician cost amount early inadmissible

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Medical Malpractice Reform" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Medical Malpractice ReformAn Overview

Pamela A. Mixon, Esq. Jeff Rogers, M.D., J.D.Counsel CounselSCPMG SCPMGSlide2

Add cartoon hereSlide3

Historical Background of Medical MalpracticeMedical malpractice is a type of tort law, known as negligence. Judge madeVaries from state to stateNegligence - people should be reasonably careful in what they do, and if they aren’t, they should be held responsible for the injuries that can be reasonably foreseen as resulting from their negligent conduct. Slide4

Compensate the Patient Injured by NegligenceDeter future negligence

Traditional Goals of Medical MalpracticeSlide5

In other words, How well does the current system achieve the two goals of the medical malpractice?

Answer?Not well at all.Problems With The Medical Malpractice System?Slide6
Slide7

11 months in arbitration5 years in court

Which leads to….Frustrated injured patientsLack of deterrence basis of malpractice Source: Claims, Errors and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation, New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2006

It’s SlowSlide8

$5.7B in liability payment$3.15B Economic damages

$2.4B Noneconomic damages$ 0.17B Punitive damages

It’s ExpensiveSlide9

$4.1B in Administrative expenses 35% of all money paid goes to attorneys$45.6B-$200B in defensive medicine

many causes 2.4-%10 of all health care spendingSlide10

10Slide11

Authors of a New England Journal of Medicine study in 2006 reviewed a random sample of 1,452 claims from five malpractice insurers, and found that 37 % of the cases involved no errors, and 3 percent involved no verifiable injuries.Source: Claims, Errors and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation, New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2006Slide12

Significant number of claims are abandoned, withdrawn or dismissed:Litigation cost and stressSlide13

One of 14 docs faces a lawsuit each yearDoes not reduce medical errors

Hampers patient safety effortsTime Consuming and CounterproductiveSlide14

14

Medical Malpractice Litigation

≠ Patient Safety

Medical malpractice

Adversarial

Blame/fault

Individual focus

Confidentiality

Patient safety

Cooperative

No-fault

Systems approach

Open communicationSlide15

Proportion of Physicians Facing a Malpractice Claim Annually, According to Specialty.

Jena AB et al. N Engl J Med 2011;365:629-636Slide16

The Crisis Leading to ReformFirst Generation Malpractice ReformsMid-1970’s, mid-1980’s, and early 2000sResponse to concerns about rising malpractice insurance premiumsThese reforms generally made laws more favorable to the health care provider-defendants than defendants in other lines of work.Slide17

Reduce the number of claims filed by patients/familiesAlter the litigation process to favor health care provider-defendants

Limit the amount of payouts to plaintiffs with successful claims

Three Goals of First-Generation ReformSlide18

Goal One – Reduce ClaimsStatutes of limitationsPretrial Screening PanelsCertificates of MeritControls on fees received by plaintiff’s attorneysSlide19

Limit the amount of time that a patient has to file a malpractice claim after being injured or discovering an injury.California – 1 year after injury or 3 years after discovery, and longer for children, fraud, intentional concealment, and a foreign body

Statutes of LimitationsSlide20

Expert panels review malpractice cases early on, and opine whether claims have sufficient merit to proceed.A negative opinion doesn’t bar a case from proceeding, but the plaintiff may be required to post a bond, and the negative opinion admissible at trial.

Pretrial Screening PanelsSlide21

Certifies that the case has merit, that the expert believe the standard of care was breachedSigned by physician in the same specialty as defendant

Over half of states require – Not CaliforniaCertifier typically need not testify

Affidavit or Certificate of MeritSlide22

Controls on fees received by plaintiffs’ attorneysLimits are place on the amount a plaintiff’s attorney may take as a contingency fee.Typically expressed as a percentage of the award.Slide23

Goal Two – Alter the Litigation Process to Favor DefendantsMinimum qualifications for expert witnessesStandards for informed consentSlide24

Board certification in relevant specialty/subspecialty that physician being sued in practices

Treat patients with the plaintiff’s conditionExpert Witness StandardsSlide25

Informed ConsentTypically these laws adopt professional custom as the standard for disclosure of risks, benefits and alternative treatments, rather than patients’ need for facts to make informed decisions about treatmentSlide26

Goal Three – Limit Payout AmountsDollar limits on noneconomic damages, total damages, and punitive damagesElimination/restriction of joint and several liability and collateral source rulePeriodic rather than lump sum paymentsSlide27

MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act)$250,000 cap on noneconomic (“pain and suffering”) damages

No cap on economic damagesAdded Notice of Intent requirement – 90 daysLimits Attorney Fees – Sliding scale40% of first $50k

33.3% $50-100k

25% $101-500k

15% of any amount>$600k

Limits or “Caps” on DamagesSlide28

Result?Compensation to patients declined 15%

Attorney fees fell 60% (RAND Study)Plaintiff attorneys bear more of the costsReduced litigation

Stabilized insurance premiums

No reduction in overall healthcare spending

No change in patient safety or physician supplySlide29

Joint and Several Liability ReformSlide30

Collateral Source ReformSlide31

Prevents Windfall

Laws Authorizing Periodic PaymentsSlide32

Other “First Generation” LawsSlide33

Compensation FundAligns patient and physician

Low Cost to AdministerWho pays and how much?Working in IcelandWhat is paid for:Basic cost v. making people wholeSlide34

Faster Less Expensive

Confidential Less disruptive to physicians and members

Mandatory Alternative Dispute ResolutionSlide35

A jury of your peers?Slide36

“Second Generation” ReformsDon’t tip the balance toward plaintiff or defendant.“Sorry” lawsDisclosure and early offer proposalsHealth courtsSafe harbor lawsSlide37

“Sorry Laws”Laws making inadmissible health care personnel expressions of regret or apology inadmissible as evidence in litigation.California has Evidence Code 1160Slide38

California Apology LawEvidence Code 1160The portion of statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person or to the family of that person shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in a civil action.

A statement of fault, however, which is part of, or in addition to, any of the above shall not be inadmissible pursuant to this section.Slide39

Disclosure and Early OfferHospitals come forward promptly with truth about adverse outcomes, and offer compensationIncentive? Typically do not award non-economic, or “pain and suffering” damages, just medical expenses and lost earningsSlide40

Lay juries are often confused, vote based on sympathy. Randomness leads to lottery mentality.

Health CourtsSlide41

PrivateCompensation based on harm to patient, rather than provider negligence

Low Cost + Limited compensationWorking in New ZealandNo Fault InsuranceSlide42

Enterprise LiabilityArrangement under which the hospital is the entity liable for harm negligently inflicted within the hospital’s walls.Slide43

What’s in Store for the Future?Slide44

What’s in Store for the Future?StateFederal Slide45

Questions……….

Comments………..