Earlier this month a decision came down from the Illinois Supreme Court that left a load of politicians and members of the American Medical Association (AMA) doing a large spraying spit-take. It could very well move its way slowly to the federal level and affect legislation already in place across the country. It involved the caps on what can be awarded in malpractice lawsuits.

In a 4-2 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the state’s five-year-old medical malpractice law because it limited compensation to injured patients for pain, suffering and other non-economic harms.

The Next Election Cycle Just Gained another Issue

Reminiscent of 2004’s presidential election where politicians ranted into any camera that was put on them about “Torte reform, torte reform, torte reform.” They said that it lowers insurance rates for doctors and doctors will then pass the saving right on to you. Since then 30 states have ratified caps on malpractice suits. Has the price of healthcare come down? No.

As you can see in the chart (courtesy of Charting the Economy) that healthcare cost has steadily been on the rise compared the consumer price index (CPI) or the hard cost per consumer. There’s a massive discrepancy between profit and the actual hard cost.

The Chicago cap is 5 years old and the Illinois numbers aren’t much different. This makes the proponents of torte reform and caps on malpractice suits just plain wrong. There is no other way of putting it.

Why Malpractice Caps Don’t Lower Healthcare Costs

There’s no incentive for individual healthcare providers, clinics, and hospitals to lower their prices just because their insurance premiums were lowered. Put yourself in their place. If you saw an extra $100,000 per year in sheer income that you would have paid to an insurance company for extended malpractice insurance, would you pass that onto your patients in the form of savings? Okay, perhaps you would, but the vast majority of healthcare providers didn’t.

What they did with it and how they justified the use is vast. But if you look at the campaign contributions by the AMA over the last decade and a half, they have been loving the way the Republican party sides with industry rather than the patient. If you haven’t noticed, lately the Democrats are the majority party. Lots of those AMA contributions have been moving the way of the Democrats now that they’re trying to mess with the profit machine that is the US healthcare system. Just hold on. Democrats can be just as against torte reform as republicans, they just don’t get as red faced about it.

Malpractice Caps Promote Cost Cutting

Consider if you were a hospital or care facility. If you knew exactly what you could be sued for, then wouldn’t that allow you to not only budget for it, but also implement those cost cutting measures knowing that when the suit comes, you will have all your bases covered?

And think about settlements. If the patient knew that they had a cap, wouldn’t it make things much easier to force a settlement at 40 or 50% of the cap regardless of the nature of the patient’s suit? The patient may be dying and may be more apt to make sure that at least some of their healthcare costs are paid for before they die to lift the burden from their family after they’re dead.

Malpractice Caps are Undemocratic

The problem with telling people what they can’t do, i.e., how much they can award their peers for medical negligence, is that at some point the restriction has to face up to the Constitution Test. Though many would love to believe that the constitution is a capitalist document, unfortunately capitalism is not a governmental theory, but an economic theory. For the proponents of malpractice caps, that means people come before profit, or, that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

The court system is one of the “checks and balances” that is the fabric of this democracy. The court system is also the only way for the consumer to directly affect the way private industry operates within society. Many of the political discourse for the past two to three decades has been focused on deregulating corporations allowing less governmental intervention and bolster individual rights. With that thinking, shouldn’t a for-profit entity (which is what most hospitals, clinics, and care facilities are) be more susceptible to people using their rights as individuals to hold the industry accountable to them, as an individual?

Malpractice Lawsuits are there to Protect You; The AMA Fights Back

The Chicago Supreme Court decision came in the case of Abigaile Lebron. She suffered severe mental impairment during her birth by Caesarean section in 2005. Abigaile’s parents have to live with the medical bills, hardship, extra time, and loss of the potential of their little girl. What is the future of a little girl worth?

The medical lobby will want you to focus away from the individual. Focus on anything BUT the victim. From a quote in the New York Times:

The court’s decision “threatens to undo all that Illinois patients and physicians have gained under the cap, including greater access to health care, lower medical liability rates and increased competition among medical liability insurers,” the American Medical Association president, Dr. J. James Rohack, said. The court’s majority, Dr. Rohack added, had “superseded the will of the people.”

Notice how Dr. Rohack neglects to mention anything concrete that has to do with the well being of the patient. He has unfortunately decided to overlook the statistics and the facts which point to less availability to healthcare and higher costs to the consumer. The rest of his statement is completely concerned with the profitability of the two goldmine industries: insurance and private healthcare.

You Deserve to Be Represented

If you have been hurt or made sicker by the negligence of a doctor, healthcare facility, nursing care facility, hospital, or other healthcare service it is within your rights to seek compensation for pain and suffering.

Contact Phillips Webster for a consultation to review you legal rights.