skip to content

Medical Professionals and Patients

Lawsuit abuse drives up medical costs, limits access

Looking for what to do next? Find out at the end of this article.

The plaintiffs’ bar wants the public to believe that its lawyers are patient’s best friends. But the truth is, they are a threat to patients’ health, having created a crisis in the medical care delivery system by filing a stream of unwarranted malpractice lawsuits.
 
Not all medical malpractice lawsuits are frivolous or abusive. Some are necessary to fairly compensate plaintiffs who are injured by doctors through negligence or incompetence. But too many are simply the product of greedy lawyers and plaintiffs looking for a jackpot.
 
Over the years, lawsuits against doctors have skyrocketed. The result has been an unhealthy increase in medical malpractice insurance premiums. When the Congressional Budget Office studied the issue in 2004, it found that “On average, premiums for all physicians nationwide rose by 15 percent between 2000 and 2002 – nearly twice as fast as total health care spending per person.”
 
Doctors across the country are giving up their practices, moving to other states or discontinuing high-risk treatments. It’s not because they have grown tired of medicine or don’t care for their surroundings. They just want to work where they can practice the healing arts without going broke.

Pennsylvania’s “Extreme Crisis” in Healthcare – Plenty of Lawyers, Not Enough Physicians

One example of this exodus can be found in Pennsylvania.

Because of the state’s liberal medical liability laws, more than 10,000 lawsuits have been filed against doctors there since 2002. Of those, the Pennsylvania Medical Board found that only 73 had “merit.” Yet since 2003, Pennsylvania juries have awarded more than $2 billion to plaintiffs who sued physicians.

Instead of a state filled with satisfied plaintiffs, Pennsylvania is instead home to among the highest medical malpractice insurance rates in the nation. The Harvard School of Public Health designated the state as one having an “extreme-level” of medical liability crisis in 2005.

As a consequence of the hostile legal climate and the high insurance rates, a shortage of doctors has arisen in Pennsylvania as more than 3,000 physicians have left the state. The damage includes at least seven preventable deaths in the suburban Philadelphia county of Chester, where there are no longer any full-time emergency neurosurgeons An additional 11 preventable deaths, perhaps more, have resulted from the lack of neurosurgeons in the greater Philadelphia area. Soaring liability costs – the average individual Philadelphia obstetrician currently pays between $130,000 and $200,000 in malpractice insurance premiums per year – have led to the closure of 14 maternity units in the Philadelphia area over the last decade, as well.

“Clearly, we’re dealing with a frivolous lawsuit environment, and it’s taking a critical toll on health care access,” said Dr. James Tayoun, a founding member of the Pennsylvania-based Patients and Physicians Alliance, an advocacy organization made up of more than 6,000 physician members in the region. “This is one of the ultimate quality of life issues.”

Guess Who Pays Litigation Price for Health Care?  You Do!

The doctors who don’t flee have to somehow recoup the expense of their exorbitant insurance premiums. They have little choice but to forward the costs to their patients or the companies that cover them. In some instances, employers, particularly small- to mid-size companies, faced with steep increases in health insurance premiums, are forced to drop health insurance coverage for their employees. For many, that is the better option than cutting back on the number of workers or moving to a state where doctors have some protections from freewheeling lawsuits.

Doctors are not the only professionals walking away from health care. The insurance companies that provide medical malpractice coverage are leaving markets in states where they are most likely to have to cover multi-million dollar jury awards and settlements in medical liability suits. Some carriers have gone bankrupt.

In the markets where the insurance companies continue to provide coverage, they often have to raise the costs of premiums to offset their losses or stop writing malpractice policies. The St. Paul Companies, once the largest malpractice carrier in the country, covering 9 percent of doctors, left the malpractice market in 2002. That decision, forced by nearly $1 billion in losses, left 42,000 doctors without insurance and many more patients than that without a physician. Pennsylvania has nearly all of its malpractice insurers and Mississippi more than 15 since 1997.

Too Many Tests, Not Enough Treatment: Treating Patients By Lawsuit

The proliferation of medical liability lawsuits has driven up costs in another way: the advent of defensive medicine. To cut their risks of being sued, physicians are increasingly ordering unnecessary tests, adding to the expense of treatment with no related increase in health benefits.

Eight in 10 physicians say they have ordered more tests than are medically necessary; roughly a quarter have referred patients to specialists more often than they believed was needed; half have recommended invasive procedures such as biopsies to confirm diagnoses when the ordinarily would not have; and four in 10 say they prescribe more medications than they would have ordered based only on their professional judgment. 

It’s estimated that the practice of defensive medicine adds roughly $124 billion a year to total health care costs. Another $30 billion is spent to defend malpractice cases, pay compensation, and cover additional administrative costs. According to Dr. Stuart L. Weinstein, chairman of the Orthopaedic Political Action Committee, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in health care costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.

What does all this mean to patients?

In many cases it means a lack of health care access, restrictions on choice, curbs on innovations and improvements, and a declining standard of care. It also means that medical treatment is unaffordable for many, a rising financial burden for others, and that the numbers of uninsured patients increases as the price of coverage grows, forced up by risings costs.

It means, as well, that we live in a time that is so litigious that many hotels have chosen to not place lifesaving heart defibrillators on their properties because they fear being sued for “for failing to have enough units, failing to put them in the right places, or failing to replace batteries or maintain them properly,” says the Wall Street Journal.

The statistics are alarming. As demonstrated in Pennsylvania, the legal conditions have brought an increase in preventable deaths. Across the country, the Pacific Research Institute estimates, more than 114,000 Americans would be alive and working today if it weren’t for the inefficiencies in the tort system over the last two decades. Anyone seeing a doctor or anyone who will in the future should have a intense interest in seeing policymakers make rational changes to tort law.
 

Now What Do We Do?

Foundation for Fair Civil Justice (FFCJ) exists to bring empowering programs and education to medical patients and medical service professionals. 

  • Please take the time to sign up for our Fairness Matters e-newsletter, which will bring you news items right to your email that tell the ongoing story about the need for legal reform by clicking here.  We don’t share your email address with anyone – that’s important to us.
     
  • Learn more about the bread-and-butter, common sense need for legal reform and how lawsuit abuse affects you as a medical patient or medical professional by listening to our “Let’s Be Fair” radio commentaries, hosted by FFCJ Senior Fellow Bob Dorigo Jones by clicking here

    Bob is a bestselling author and founder of the nationally profiled “Wacky Warning Label Contest,” which annually picks the wackiest warning labels on products to underscore the absurd lengths to which American business has to go in response to the threat of lawsuits.

     
  • Finally, we hope that FFCJ programming is a good investment for your business and for America!  Please take the time to invest in our work to protect you by making a tax-deductible contribution by clicking here.

Read More


| Print Article



See All News Headlines > In the Headlines

Graham, Chambliss Address Medical Malpractice with ‘Loser Pays’ Reform

WASHINGTON – United States Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) today introduced ‘Loser Pays’ legislation to decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits that increase the cost of medical care.

“Reform of medical malpractice is one of the key, missing ingredients from the health care reform proposals being debated in Congress,” said Senator Graham “A ‘Loser Pays’ system is one of the best devices available to prevent frivolous lawsuits from costing all of us.  When both parties in a lawsuit are subject to financial penalty, people think longer and harder about bringing a questionable case forward.  Most western nations already have a ‘Loser Pays’ rule, and it is time our own country adopts this concept.”


New Report Boosts Backers of Lawsuit Reform

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Limiting medical malpractice lawsuits could save the U.S. government $54 billion over a decade, congressional budget analysts said on Friday in a report that could boost a Republican push to include lawsuit reform in President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul.

Capping awards for non-economic and punitive damages along with other reforms would reduce doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums and defensive medicine practices for government health programs, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a letter to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.


Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating

A moment of clarity from Howard Dean, courtesy of CNS News, who took this video at the town-hall forum of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). When an angry constituent wondered why a supposedly comprehensive “reform” of the health-care system doesn’t include tort reform to lower costs of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive medicine, Dean responds as “a doctor and a politician.” Apparently, neither has the courage to face the trial-lawyer lobby.



See All Opinions & Editorials > Opinions & Editorials

Here’s What is Stopping Tort Reform

James Copland, The Manhattan Institute

(Washington Examiner) In his September 9, nationally televised speech before a joint session of Congress, President Obama made news by saying that medical-malpractice litigation “may be contributing to unnecessary costs” in the U.S. health-care system.

Since then, trial-lawyer advocates—including their lobbying arm, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and various allied “consumer” groups such as the Center for Justice and Democracy—have been engaged in a fierce counter-attack. Front-and-center among the lawyer-advocates’ arguments is that litigation is too small a piece of the health-care puzzle to make much difference.


Montana Sets Example of Medical Tort Reform

Billings Gazette Staff

(Billings Gazette) Most Americans would agree that “frivolous” lawsuits should be avoided, but how can the merits of a malpractice complaint be determined outside of the regular court system? What should be done to protect health care providers from “frivolous” litigation while still safeguarding the rights of individuals who were harmed by doctors or hospitals that failed to meet professional standards of care?

On page 207 of a 263-page summary of the Senate Finance Committee’s amended health care bill, there’s a paragraph about medical malpractice that says: “Congress should consider establishing a state demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the civil litigation system.”


Defensive Medicine Takes a Financial Toll

Dr. Ogelsby Young

Total spending on medical malpractice was estimated at $30.4 billion in 2007. Although that is a substantial figure, those against medical-legal tort reform argue that it amounts to just over 1 percent of total U.S. health care spending. What they fail to recognize are the hidden costs of our medical-legal practice system - the indirect costs of defensive medicine.

All physicians would admit to ordering lab tests, recommending radiological studies and even performing procedures to avoid a lawsuit or better defend ourselves if we are sued.

Look no further than my specialty of obstetrics for a good example of defensive medicine. Our country’s cesarean section rate in 1970 was 5 percent. Today more than 30 percent of births are by cesarean section. Babies have not grown that much bigger! And, remarkably, the incidence of cerebral palsy has not changed during the 35 years of increasing cesarean section rates. Good science has shown that less than 10 percent of cerebral palsy has anything to do with events during labor and delivery. Regrettably, obstetricians have learned that our liability for the outcome of a birth is markedly reduced by performing a c-section. As one of my colleagues said, “We are never sued for the cesarean section we have done, but when we are sued it is often for the c-section we did not perform.”


© 2010 Foundation for Fair Civil Justice 250 Willow Springs Drive, Roswell, GA 30075 770.317.2423 info@foundationforfairciviljustice.org