Hey…Thanks for clarfying the moving the subsidy premise for me.
I agree with you but I have to think that as part of the overall process that the insurance malpractice premium rates should be reduced accordingly…So far with the MCARE Statute, the number of claims has been halved but the rates have not dropped accordingly so I tend to be suspicious of our industry a bit these days because of this type of situation.
Mike, you are dead-on that with less exposure should come a reduction in costs. I think if lawyers had to subsidize the program you’d see a reduction in costs as the lawyers went after insurance companies. I might be wrong though.
Why are taxpayers subsizing Medical Malpractice premiums?
If the problem is with the legal industry and the redefining of “malpractice” by trial lawyers, then why doesn’t the state pass legislation to reform the tort system?
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing the malpractice policies. States financial conditions are in bad enough shape and physicians should not practice defensive medicine.
I concur. Personal injury attorneys should “pay to play”. They’re the ones who are mining the medical community for profit while contributing nothing. They should be surcharged, on a graduated scale depending on the amount of any award, that comes out of their portion of the fee. We’re forcing good doctors to abandon their practices and will soon be left with foreign doctors who are just happy to be here and may be less qualified. Think I’m over-reacting? Just take a look at the last names of your doctors and check their CV’s.
I agree with the “pay to play” bit. It gives the lawyers more incentive to ensure their case is tight enough to get past a jury. Though I would go with a flat rate – 30 or 40% should do it – of attorney fees rather than a sliding scale. But that’s just because I don’t like the concept of paying a higher percentage of what I make for any reason just because I make more.
I live in PA and I’ve handled Med Malpractice claims over the years.
Back in 2003, the State of PA enacted legislation that dramatically changed the claims/risk environment.
The number of claims have been reduced by over 50% (including actual payouts)yet the carrier premiums (and profits)have continue to skyrocket during this same time.
The subsidy was enacted after a huge number of healthcare practioners left because of the coverage costs and the goal of the subsidy was reduce these costs.
Now that the subsidy is gone, the people of PA are at risk of reopening the flood gates wherein a loss of talented healthcare providers may occur.
All of the being said, it is always easy to view a story from one’s side with one’s own perspective but we must be aware that things are not always as cut and dry as they may be presented to us.
What we’re batting about is moving the subsidy. Instead of having the State subsidize premiums the trial lawyers should be forced to do it – “pay to play”. The doctors keep lower premiums and lawyers are forced to have a stake in the matter and actually look at the cases they take on.
Good points and discussion. Let me throw another issue on the table…..the “contingent fee” for presonal injury attorneys. Is any other practice of law involved with such a lottery system of compensation? This pig in a poke was sold to the public on the theory that many people couldn’t afford to pay a lawyer so in return for representation, the lawyer would take the case for a percentage of the settlement. A 33%-50% ROI is the usual fee depending on whether the case is in suit. If they’re so altruistic, they can still offer “contingency”, but it should be limited to billable hours. (ouch!) However, there’s a built-in incentive to exaggerate the claim and make the injury look as bad as it can since the lawyer is nothing more than a commission salesperson. That artificial escalation in severity causes much un-necessary medical expense to be incurred that only drives up premiums. To make matters worse, the lawyer must inflate the value of the claim to justify his/her fee. I recall challenging the system once and was amazed at the backlash I created with the plaintiff bar. Anytime I was un-successful in settling a personal injury claim directly with the claimant and the claimant indicated he/she would get an attorney, I suggested the following. That’s fine, but make sure your attorney knows you’ve already had a settlement offer of $50,000 (hypothetical) and that his contingent fee should only be applied to the amount in excess of what you could already get without him. Should have heard the squealing.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Hi Last Bat,
Hey…Thanks for clarfying the moving the subsidy premise for me.
I agree with you but I have to think that as part of the overall process that the insurance malpractice premium rates should be reduced accordingly…So far with the MCARE Statute, the number of claims has been halved but the rates have not dropped accordingly so I tend to be suspicious of our industry a bit these days because of this type of situation.
Welp..Thanks for listening!
Take Care,
Mike
Mike, you are dead-on that with less exposure should come a reduction in costs. I think if lawyers had to subsidize the program you’d see a reduction in costs as the lawyers went after insurance companies. I might be wrong though.
Why are taxpayers subsizing Medical Malpractice premiums?
If the problem is with the legal industry and the redefining of “malpractice” by trial lawyers, then why doesn’t the state pass legislation to reform the tort system?
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing the malpractice policies. States financial conditions are in bad enough shape and physicians should not practice defensive medicine.
I agree with TAR. Let’s tap the pockets of attorney’s and not the middle class taxpayers.
I concur. Personal injury attorneys should “pay to play”. They’re the ones who are mining the medical community for profit while contributing nothing. They should be surcharged, on a graduated scale depending on the amount of any award, that comes out of their portion of the fee. We’re forcing good doctors to abandon their practices and will soon be left with foreign doctors who are just happy to be here and may be less qualified. Think I’m over-reacting? Just take a look at the last names of your doctors and check their CV’s.
I agree with the “pay to play” bit. It gives the lawyers more incentive to ensure their case is tight enough to get past a jury. Though I would go with a flat rate – 30 or 40% should do it – of attorney fees rather than a sliding scale. But that’s just because I don’t like the concept of paying a higher percentage of what I make for any reason just because I make more.
I can’t agree with you more!
Hello,
I live in PA and I’ve handled Med Malpractice claims over the years.
Back in 2003, the State of PA enacted legislation that dramatically changed the claims/risk environment.
The number of claims have been reduced by over 50% (including actual payouts)yet the carrier premiums (and profits)have continue to skyrocket during this same time.
The subsidy was enacted after a huge number of healthcare practioners left because of the coverage costs and the goal of the subsidy was reduce these costs.
Now that the subsidy is gone, the people of PA are at risk of reopening the flood gates wherein a loss of talented healthcare providers may occur.
All of the being said, it is always easy to view a story from one’s side with one’s own perspective but we must be aware that things are not always as cut and dry as they may be presented to us.
Thanks!
Mike
What we’re batting about is moving the subsidy. Instead of having the State subsidize premiums the trial lawyers should be forced to do it – “pay to play”. The doctors keep lower premiums and lawyers are forced to have a stake in the matter and actually look at the cases they take on.
Good points and discussion. Let me throw another issue on the table…..the “contingent fee” for presonal injury attorneys. Is any other practice of law involved with such a lottery system of compensation? This pig in a poke was sold to the public on the theory that many people couldn’t afford to pay a lawyer so in return for representation, the lawyer would take the case for a percentage of the settlement. A 33%-50% ROI is the usual fee depending on whether the case is in suit. If they’re so altruistic, they can still offer “contingency”, but it should be limited to billable hours. (ouch!) However, there’s a built-in incentive to exaggerate the claim and make the injury look as bad as it can since the lawyer is nothing more than a commission salesperson. That artificial escalation in severity causes much un-necessary medical expense to be incurred that only drives up premiums. To make matters worse, the lawyer must inflate the value of the claim to justify his/her fee. I recall challenging the system once and was amazed at the backlash I created with the plaintiff bar. Anytime I was un-successful in settling a personal injury claim directly with the claimant and the claimant indicated he/she would get an attorney, I suggested the following. That’s fine, but make sure your attorney knows you’ve already had a settlement offer of $50,000 (hypothetical) and that his contingent fee should only be applied to the amount in excess of what you could already get without him. Should have heard the squealing.