Well, all the amendments regarding health care passed. It will be interesting to see what sort of affects they have on the cost of insurance premiums for medical malpractice and health care. I think that amendments 7 and 8 are good for consumer protection. Amendment 7 will allow people to review a doctor's record of adverse incidents. Amendment 8 imposes a "three strikes you're out" rule for doctors involved in malpractice. I believe that 8 in particular
may actually help to lower malpractice insurance premiums for doctors since it could potentially reduce the number of claims that companies will have to pay.
I am uncertain what effects amendment 3 may have, but I do have my concerns. I foresee two possible effects:
- On one hand, it almost provides an incentive for individuals to attempt pursuing malpractice suits since they would receive a larger payout. This would increase the number of malpractice suits and in turn could make the situation worse. If the number of malpractice claims rises, it would in turn raise malpractice insurance premiums for doctors.
- Fewer lawyers will take malpractice suits due to their reduced profit margins. This would certainly make things difficult for individuals who have legitimate malpractice claims and require legal services to receive what they are entitled. This could potentially reduce insurance malpractice premiums, but many consumers would lose their day in court.
I do know that amendment 3 will not lower the demand for medical malpractice legal services. If anything it may actually stimulate demand. The fact remains that we have an aging population, and especially Florida where millions of people go to retire. I am concerned that this legislation has passed, as I think it may cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps the other legislation that has passed may help to reduce the adverse effects of amendment 3. Only time will tell what will happen...
4 comments:
Oops, yeah, I meant amendment 3. I amended the post to fix that. Amendment 7 isn't anything counting against anything. It allows a consumer to make an informed decision based on a doctor's history with patients. I think it's good for people to know any lawsuits a doctor has been involved with regardless of the outcome. If a doctor has had 20 malpractice suits but has managed to avoid paying any claims, it could just mean that he has a very good lawyer. I think consumers should have the right to be aware of this history.
Yorgi is talking about Amendment 3. Marky, Amendment 7 only applies to doctors that are found guilty of medical malpractice 3 times, not just if they are sued. Being that doctors win 80% of medical malpractice cases already, they have little chance of being hurt by this. The few really, really bad doctors out there will be the ones to pay the piper. I think this is a great amendment because it simply tells bad doctors to get out.
As for amendment 8, I also think it is a great amendment. Imagine having the ability to choose a doctor based on his/her merits. It is a wonderful thing and again will help weed out those who simply don't belong in the profession.
As for Amendment 3, I agree with Jorge. The hill to climb for an injured person was already steep enough. Now with this amendment, injured victims almost have no hope of holding someone accountable for a mistake. Lawyers already are not very interested in these cases since they are so very expensive and take so long to litigate. Then you realize you have a 20% chance of winning, and you are even more discouraged. Limit the contingency fee to 10% on top of that, and suddenly I'm looking to do real estate law.
Will amendment 3 reduce medical malpractice premiums? All you have to do is look at California. A similar law was passed in that state with the promise of reducing medical malpractice insurance premiums. Twelve years after this proposition was passed, the medical malpractice premiums for doctors had more than tripled. Did the proposition work? Of course not. Was it truly meant to work? Never. All it was meant to do was to immunize doctors and insurance companies from legitimate victims of medical malpractice. That is the exact same thing that is going to happen with Amendement 3.
The only thing that actually worked in California was when the legislature passed a limitation on the actual premiums. How about that! They finally got it right.
Well, Amendment 3 is going to be defeated in court anyway since it is completely unconstitutional.
Sorry, I'm also getting my amendments mixed up. Amendment 7 allows a patient to view the doctor's history. Amendment 8 takes away the license of any doctor that has had 3 adverse rulings against him/her.
That was funny, Fasty! -Shidog
Post a Comment