Why is medical malpractice insurance important?

Medical malpractice suits are becoming more common in the US, as the personal bond between doctor and patient becomes a thing of the past. A serious new problem has burst upon the U.S. medical scene: malpractice insurance.

Is medical malpractice insurance required?

The value of a life ruined through a doctor’s bungling is now measured by juries in the millions of dollars, a trend that has made medical malpractice suits a multi-billion dollar business.

Some firms which ensure doctors and hospitals against suits for malpractice of negligence now threaten to stop providing this insurance. They say they have been losing money as more suits are instituted and jury awards grow.

Doctors say they do not dare practice without malpractice insurance. Some threaten to stop the practice if insurance no longer is available, an action that would seriously threaten the health care of many Americans.

State regulating agencies have taken steps to prevent an immediate cut-off of this vital insurance. But the long-term problem remains, and many meetings are underway in an effort to come to grips with it.

Why is medical malpractice insurance so expensive?

In the final analysis, it is the patient, as usual, who will pay for rising malpractice-insurance costs. Doctors and hospitals will pass along their higher costs in the form of higher bills to patients.

The whole malpractice issue has been building for years.

Decades ago, there was no malpractice problem. Americans put full faith in their doctors, who were general practitioners. Often a close, almost family, relationship was established. Their doctors, most Americans thought, could do no wrong.

But times have changed. Medical care now is fragmented – many Americans have not one but several doctors, each with his own specialty. Often there is a little personal relationship between anxious patients and rushed doctors.

Americans are losing their old awe of medical men. They realize that doctors, for all their fine work, occasionally make mistakes even as the rest of us do – thus suits against them are on the rise.

So are the size of jury malpractice awards in such cases. In 1965 the average jury award was the equivalent of $47,000. Today it is over $1 million; the average jury award is increasing year by year.

Many large insurance companies saying they are incurring heavy losses have announced plans to stop writing malpractice insurance in some areas. Doctors in parts of several states now face the possible loss of their malpractice insurance. As a result, several steps are being taken to deal with the problem.

One of the questions which needs probing is how much money, if any, insurance firms really are losing.

What are some examples of medical malpractice?

Doctors often view the suits as efforts by unscrupulous patients, or their unscrupulous lawyers, to make a quick bundle of cash at the expense of insurance companies without real medical justification. Clearly, that frequently occurs.

Many put much blame on lawyers, holding that in order to make money for themselves they convince clients to file suit on the assumption that insurance companies will settle the case out of court for a modest sum rather than risk losing more in a drawn-out court fight.

But part of the problem is that a tiny minority of doctors and dentists do commit mistakes occasionally, and a few of these doctors and dentists are simply incompetent.

Let’s look at a few examples:

  • After a fall, a young boy was sent home from a hospital emergency room as all right; his skull fracture was not discovered. He developed a brain clot and permanent paralysis.
  • During tooth-straightening efforts an orthodontist permitted a teenage – boy’s teeth to grow so far out of his gums that his front teeth threatened to fall out. All must be reimplanted by expensive dental surgery, in effect by breaking the jaws, which then will be wired together for weeks. He will be unable to eat normally for three months.
  • When asked by a woman in her late 30’s for pills to dull the pain of the first day of her menstrual period, a gynecologist instead recommended a hysterectomy. He said he had developed a new method for removing the uterus through the vagina, thus there would be no external abdominal scar. Horrified, she refused, but he kept bringing up the subject during subsequent visits. She finally decided in her own mind why he was pressuring her: he also was a medical school professor, who perhaps wished the opportunity to teach his new technique to students.

The need is to enable patients such as these to be provided compensation when they have been wronged by negligent or incompetent doctors or dentists.

At the same time, the overwhelming percentage of able and dedicated physicians and hospitals must be protected against nuisance claims of unscrupulous patients and lawyers’ and at a cost that they and their patients can afford.

How to achieve both ends will, it is hoped, come from the examinations of the problem that now are underway.

Loading RSS Feed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *