The AMA and Insurance Industry have been on a campaign to convince legislators that 1: There is a malpractice insurance crisis which is making insurance too expensive for doctors and that due to this crisis to many doctors are leaving their profession and placing patients at the risk of no medical care. 2: The costs of litigation and awards in states where caps do not exist are the root cause for the crisis.
August 2003, the General Accounting Office ( GAO ) completed a study which showed that the AMA and other medical groups exaggerated and possibly created the illusion of a crisis when none existed. The GAO studied five states ( Florida, Mississippi, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada ) the AMA had designated as crisis states.
In Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, where the AMA reported a loss of physicians, the GAO study found that the number of physicians had increased slightly and several physicians who reportedly had retired or left were still in practice and accepting new patients. Some areas of the states had a loss in physicians, but this was in rural areas and attributed to economic circumstances and rural characteristics. The loss of physicians however did not prevent people in the area from receiving necessary medical care.
The GAO study also showed while there was some rate increase relief in states with caps, it also noted that some states without caps experienced lower rate increases than those with caps. It was also noted that factors such as, reduction in investment income due to market conditions also contributed to the reduced profits and higher rates charged by the insurance companies.
More than 40% of the pages in the GAO study were refuting claims made by the AMA. The GAO researchers concluded that the claims made by the AMA were unrealized.
Other studies and reports have come to similar conclusions as the GAO. Business Week, â€Ŕ A Second Opinion on the Malpractice Plague,†By Lorraine Woellert ( March 3, 2003 )
â€Ŕ… capped states saw premiums rise an average of 12.7% last year; states without them saw premiums rise 20.4% … caps might moderate premium hikes but not to the extent that tort reformers claim.â€Â
USA Today, â€Ŕ Hype outraces facts in malpractice debate,†By Peter Eisler ( March 5, 2003 )
â€Ŕ … a big part of the increase in the cost of claims paid by insurers is due to growth in economic damages – medical bills, lost wages, and other tangible losses that would not be capped.â€Â
Weiss Ratings, Inc., â€Ŕ Medical Malpractice Caps: The Impact of Damage Caps on Physician Premiums â€Ŕ ( Report, June 2, 2003 )
â€Ŕ … In 19 states that implemented caps during the last 12-year period, physicians suffered a 48.2 percent jump in median premiums … surprisingly, in 32 states without caps, the pace was actually somewhat slower, as premiums rose by only 35.9 percent …. â€Ŕ
â€Ŕ Although the implementation of non-economic caps has resulted in a slowdown in payout increases for insurers, most insurers have not passed those savings on to physicians, continuing to jack up premiums due to other powerful pressures. ….â€Â
It seems strange that the AMA is out supporting some limits on attorneys’ contingency fees by an amendment to the Florida constitution.
The article doesn’t distinguish whether these are only to be limited in medmal cases. Even if so, the issue of availability and affordability of coverage might, at best, only be peripherially involved.
What’s a stake is the ability of persons which have been injured through no fault of their own to have access to the courts for a redress of their injuries. If fees are limited then fewer cases might be brought, I guess the thinking goes. But, if fees are limited then the cases which would provide only the largest recoveries will then be the cases filed and litigated. Hmmm, maybe not what the AMA wants.
The whole effort is a backdoor to limits on recoveries which the voters won’t support and an attempt to punish those which have had the effrontery to represent injured persons and to get them fair recoveries. We aren’t hearing any clarion calls from any people which have had injuries and think fees were too high.
The whole issue relates back to the mid-80’s when the Florida legislature enacted caps, abolished the collateral source rule and mandated other reforms the AMA wants for all the “crisis” states. The leislature bowed to consumers’ concerns and also required filings by the medmal insurers to show the impact that “tort reform” had upon rates. The filings said caps and the other reforms would not reduce rates at all and the abolition of the collateral source rule would reduce rates by some “.01 per cent”. That’s not one per cent, that’s one tenth of one per cent.
The AMA knows the facts which I have recited here. The AMA knows that voters won’t approve amending the Florida Constituition to limit damage awards. But, in the flurry of falsity which the AMA foments about a “crisis”, it hope voters will support an ill-conceived effort to limit some attorneys’ fees. Mind you, there is no limit proposed upon what the doctors may spend to defend any cases. Perhaps the AMA has forgotten its Hippocratic oath to “do no harm” in its hypocrisy in supporting limits on attorney contingency fees in Florida.
What seems strange to me is that malpractice lawyers deny any relatioinship between the high number of (often frivolous) malpracitce cases in Florida (and the cost it takes to defend them) and the steep rise in malpractice insurance rates. How can there not be a relationship between the two?
The malpractice lawyers’ spin is that they are protecting the rights of patients to sue bad doctors. What they don’t want people to know is that it is a goldmine for them. Clients pay nothing if they don’t win (encouraging frivolous suits), the winnings are usually very large and lawyers get nearly half of the award. (40%). After clients pay their liens, they get far less than half. Lawyers do not want to see an end to their cash cow. Their mantra is not “helping people” it is “show me the money”. They are making it more and more difficult for physicians to give quality care. Physicians are too busy paying malpracitce insurance and dodging bullets from trial lawyers.
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.
Malpractice Myths:
The AMA and Insurance Industry have been on a campaign to convince legislators that 1: There is a malpractice insurance crisis which is making insurance too expensive for doctors and that due to this crisis to many doctors are leaving their profession and placing patients at the risk of no medical care. 2: The costs of litigation and awards in states where caps do not exist are the root cause for the crisis.
August 2003, the General Accounting Office ( GAO ) completed a study which showed that the AMA and other medical groups exaggerated and possibly created the illusion of a crisis when none existed. The GAO studied five states ( Florida, Mississippi, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada ) the AMA had designated as crisis states.
In Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, where the AMA reported a loss of physicians, the GAO study found that the number of physicians had increased slightly and several physicians who reportedly had retired or left were still in practice and accepting new patients. Some areas of the states had a loss in physicians, but this was in rural areas and attributed to economic circumstances and rural characteristics. The loss of physicians however did not prevent people in the area from receiving necessary medical care.
The GAO study also showed while there was some rate increase relief in states with caps, it also noted that some states without caps experienced lower rate increases than those with caps. It was also noted that factors such as, reduction in investment income due to market conditions also contributed to the reduced profits and higher rates charged by the insurance companies.
More than 40% of the pages in the GAO study were refuting claims made by the AMA. The GAO researchers concluded that the claims made by the AMA were unrealized.
Other studies and reports have come to similar conclusions as the GAO. Business Week, â€Ŕ A Second Opinion on the Malpractice Plague,†By Lorraine Woellert ( March 3, 2003 )
â€Ŕ… capped states saw premiums rise an average of 12.7% last year; states without them saw premiums rise 20.4% … caps might moderate premium hikes but not to the extent that tort reformers claim.â€Â
USA Today, â€Ŕ Hype outraces facts in malpractice debate,†By Peter Eisler ( March 5, 2003 )
â€Ŕ … a big part of the increase in the cost of claims paid by insurers is due to growth in economic damages – medical bills, lost wages, and other tangible losses that would not be capped.â€Â
Weiss Ratings, Inc., â€Ŕ Medical Malpractice Caps: The Impact of Damage Caps on Physician Premiums â€Ŕ ( Report, June 2, 2003 )
â€Ŕ … In 19 states that implemented caps during the last 12-year period, physicians suffered a 48.2 percent jump in median premiums … surprisingly, in 32 states without caps, the pace was actually somewhat slower, as premiums rose by only 35.9 percent …. â€Ŕ
â€Ŕ Although the implementation of non-economic caps has resulted in a slowdown in payout increases for insurers, most insurers have not passed those savings on to physicians, continuing to jack up premiums due to other powerful pressures. ….â€Â
It seems strange that the AMA is out supporting some limits on attorneys’ contingency fees by an amendment to the Florida constitution.
The article doesn’t distinguish whether these are only to be limited in medmal cases. Even if so, the issue of availability and affordability of coverage might, at best, only be peripherially involved.
What’s a stake is the ability of persons which have been injured through no fault of their own to have access to the courts for a redress of their injuries. If fees are limited then fewer cases might be brought, I guess the thinking goes. But, if fees are limited then the cases which would provide only the largest recoveries will then be the cases filed and litigated. Hmmm, maybe not what the AMA wants.
The whole effort is a backdoor to limits on recoveries which the voters won’t support and an attempt to punish those which have had the effrontery to represent injured persons and to get them fair recoveries. We aren’t hearing any clarion calls from any people which have had injuries and think fees were too high.
The whole issue relates back to the mid-80’s when the Florida legislature enacted caps, abolished the collateral source rule and mandated other reforms the AMA wants for all the “crisis” states. The leislature bowed to consumers’ concerns and also required filings by the medmal insurers to show the impact that “tort reform” had upon rates. The filings said caps and the other reforms would not reduce rates at all and the abolition of the collateral source rule would reduce rates by some “.01 per cent”. That’s not one per cent, that’s one tenth of one per cent.
The AMA knows the facts which I have recited here. The AMA knows that voters won’t approve amending the Florida Constituition to limit damage awards. But, in the flurry of falsity which the AMA foments about a “crisis”, it hope voters will support an ill-conceived effort to limit some attorneys’ fees. Mind you, there is no limit proposed upon what the doctors may spend to defend any cases. Perhaps the AMA has forgotten its Hippocratic oath to “do no harm” in its hypocrisy in supporting limits on attorney contingency fees in Florida.
What seems strange to me is that malpractice lawyers deny any relatioinship between the high number of (often frivolous) malpracitce cases in Florida (and the cost it takes to defend them) and the steep rise in malpractice insurance rates. How can there not be a relationship between the two?
The malpractice lawyers’ spin is that they are protecting the rights of patients to sue bad doctors. What they don’t want people to know is that it is a goldmine for them. Clients pay nothing if they don’t win (encouraging frivolous suits), the winnings are usually very large and lawyers get nearly half of the award. (40%). After clients pay their liens, they get far less than half. Lawyers do not want to see an end to their cash cow. Their mantra is not “helping people” it is “show me the money”. They are making it more and more difficult for physicians to give quality care. Physicians are too busy paying malpracitce insurance and dodging bullets from trial lawyers.