The Join Cross Site is pushing Tom Cross’ plan to deal with medical liability which in at least Metro East is out of control. Madison is a judicial hell hole and I’m generally not much for the overstatements on both sides in tort reform.
The challenge for reasonable tort reform is to create a situation where doctors, especially in high risk specialties, can practice in conditions that both allow natural risk to occur, but don’t excuse true malpractice.
Compared to Missouri Republicans’ plan, Cross’ plan is incredibly enlightened. Missouri is largely removing the right to sue, Cross is trying to deal with excessive judgments. Roeser’s recent column is posted at the site, and a bit over the top, as Roeser is usually.
A few things Roeser gets wrong–and presumably Cross are nitpicking, but important to think about:
South of Springfield there are no neurosurgeons
Except that the Metro East is largely served by two of the best hospital systems in the country with both midlevel neurosurgeons and truly worldclass ones. South of Springfield, the increasing technical requirements for neurosurgeons aren’t likely to be supported by relatively small hospitals. That is a problem, but a problem in how we allocate health care dollars more than anything. So, that stat isn’t as meaningful as it sounds. The other thing that is missing from Roeser’s argument is that St. Louis City is considered a bad venue for defendants as well though there are plenty of doctors here. So the whole story isn’t just Madison County, but structural changes in the health care industry.
Another section is interesting, but probably needs careful consideration:
a state constitutional amendment enabling the legislature to set a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions, with the cap pegged to the Consumer Price Index; a guaranteed minimum award for patients’ lost wages, where they earn less than the average weekly wage, and a requirement that attorneys’ fees will not be paid from awards for damages.
I’m a bit concerned about the attorney’s fees not being allowed out of damages. Taking cases is risky and without some sort of strong chance to be paid, then lawyers won’t take the case. Most of us can’t afford to pay the large fees to take on insurance companies so while patients should be able to get the maximum, the maximum might be higher if they are allowed to use an arrangement with a lawyer. That can probably be worked with to create a reasonable solution though. The cap on non-economic damages is certainly reasonable for high risk practices and the ties to the consumer price index is reasonable. I think most of us could live with that.
What is most interesting in the bill is that it seeks to end venue shopping by not banning it, but by taking away the incentives. That seems to me to be a reasonable strategy and better than Missouri where the whole deal is a sop to insurance companies.
Insurance companies are a part of the problem. A balanced approach would involve some insurance reforms as well.
So with some minor tweaks I could live with Cross’ plan. The interesting question is what does Bloviator think? He’s busy, but I hope he comments sometime. The plan is probably not going anywhere this year, but I think after the election this might pick up some traction as even Democrats are signalling something needs to be done. Given the complexity of the issue, this one will take some time to do right.
And if you go the Joincross blog you’ll notice a very half-hearted defense of the Minority Leader’s hair cut. Takes a brave man to poke fun at the boss.
That said, as you look to the right, I have a new advertiser. I thought it might happen, but I had started this well before I knew it would be up now. It had nothing to do with this post. Actually the e-mail update from them did–hello Illinois Democrats!