Second generation of Tort Reform must include Justice.
Medicine Based Evidence is a good tool in liability prevention.
We developed a new strategie, perhaps it will change the future in this issue.
Excuse my english, in Uruguay we speak spanish.
Our web: http://www.mpacorporation.com
Sincerely,
Ruben
Many patients, will be subjected to acts of malpractice. When an act of malpractice occurs, the questions begin. Would the outcome have been different had another doctor been in charge? Does this provider have prior acts of malpractice? Where can a person go to find out if doctors have previous charges against them? How accurate are the reporting agencies? Who protects the citizens from bad doctors?
Currently there is no system in place that monitors and reports to the public the number of medical malpractice claims against health care providers. Providers could have charges filed against them, sanctions from other states, or just recently had their licenses reinstated, and the public would not know.
The National Practitioner DataBank, mandated through the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, is the clearinghouse for adverse actions against health care providers. The Act states that all claims that result in a payment for a claim of malpractice against a physician, dentist or health care provider, must be reported. However, as discussed in the NPDB, â€Ŕ2001 Annual Report,†page 15, providers functioning under a â€Ŕcorporate shield,†may not be reported. Even when a claim is reported to the NPDB, that information is not available to the public. This is bad policy that protects bad providers. The public’s right to make well-informed decisions concerning health care and providers is continually usurped, while providers who commit egregious acts of harm are protected.
Doctors, insurance companies and the American Medical Association constantly bemoan the fact that malpractice insurance rates are too high. Some members of these groups place the blame for the high rates upon those whom they have harmed through acts of medical malpractice and choose to litigate. Advocates for the medical profession pursue legislation to restrict or remove the right of fair and just compensation from the injured. Some health care professionals attempt to portray themselves as the victims. These â€Ŕprofessionals†give the appearance of wanting to distance themselves from responsibility for their actions and the actions of their peers. Yet these same â€Ŕprofessionals†do not want their right to litigate either limited or removed when they feel they have been harmed.
Louisiana Watch strongly advocates for implementation of the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine as outlined in the January 9, 2003 article, â€ŔOrganized Medicine Has Opposed Key Institute of Medicine Recommendations on Patient Safety,†by Arthur A. Levin.
* Creation and enforcement of a nationwide mandatory reporting system for all errors that result in serious harm or death for hospitals, institutional providers and ambulatory care systems.
* Periodic re-examination and re-licensing of doctors, nurses and other providers based on both competence and knowledge of safety practices.
* Development of a system that more effectively identifies unsafe providers and takes positive actions to prevent further harm to citizens by these unsafe providers.
Beyond the IOM recommendations, Louisiana Watch also advocates for the removal of the â€Ŕcorporate shield†for reporting purposes.
I think if awards for victims can be limited then premiums charged by insurance companies should also be capped as well as fees by physicians for their services to patients. Lets be fair here and see just how well this goes over. How can you possibly think that $200 to $300 hundred thousand can cover a lifetime of expenses even without the medical needs figured in? If a car manufacturer makes a faulty product that costs someones ability to work or their life then they are held responsible – so why not the physician? This whole idea of capping awards is absolutely ludicrous.
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.
Second generation of Tort Reform must include Justice.
Medicine Based Evidence is a good tool in liability prevention.
We developed a new strategie, perhaps it will change the future in this issue.
Excuse my english, in Uruguay we speak spanish.
Our web: http://www.mpacorporation.com
Sincerely,
Ruben
Many patients, will be subjected to acts of malpractice. When an act of malpractice occurs, the questions begin. Would the outcome have been different had another doctor been in charge? Does this provider have prior acts of malpractice? Where can a person go to find out if doctors have previous charges against them? How accurate are the reporting agencies? Who protects the citizens from bad doctors?
Currently there is no system in place that monitors and reports to the public the number of medical malpractice claims against health care providers. Providers could have charges filed against them, sanctions from other states, or just recently had their licenses reinstated, and the public would not know.
The National Practitioner DataBank, mandated through the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, is the clearinghouse for adverse actions against health care providers. The Act states that all claims that result in a payment for a claim of malpractice against a physician, dentist or health care provider, must be reported. However, as discussed in the NPDB, â€Ŕ2001 Annual Report,†page 15, providers functioning under a â€Ŕcorporate shield,†may not be reported. Even when a claim is reported to the NPDB, that information is not available to the public. This is bad policy that protects bad providers. The public’s right to make well-informed decisions concerning health care and providers is continually usurped, while providers who commit egregious acts of harm are protected.
Doctors, insurance companies and the American Medical Association constantly bemoan the fact that malpractice insurance rates are too high. Some members of these groups place the blame for the high rates upon those whom they have harmed through acts of medical malpractice and choose to litigate. Advocates for the medical profession pursue legislation to restrict or remove the right of fair and just compensation from the injured. Some health care professionals attempt to portray themselves as the victims. These â€Ŕprofessionals†give the appearance of wanting to distance themselves from responsibility for their actions and the actions of their peers. Yet these same â€Ŕprofessionals†do not want their right to litigate either limited or removed when they feel they have been harmed.
Louisiana Watch strongly advocates for implementation of the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine as outlined in the January 9, 2003 article, â€ŔOrganized Medicine Has Opposed Key Institute of Medicine Recommendations on Patient Safety,†by Arthur A. Levin.
* Creation and enforcement of a nationwide mandatory reporting system for all errors that result in serious harm or death for hospitals, institutional providers and ambulatory care systems.
* Periodic re-examination and re-licensing of doctors, nurses and other providers based on both competence and knowledge of safety practices.
* Development of a system that more effectively identifies unsafe providers and takes positive actions to prevent further harm to citizens by these unsafe providers.
Beyond the IOM recommendations, Louisiana Watch also advocates for the removal of the â€Ŕcorporate shield†for reporting purposes.
I think if awards for victims can be limited then premiums charged by insurance companies should also be capped as well as fees by physicians for their services to patients. Lets be fair here and see just how well this goes over. How can you possibly think that $200 to $300 hundred thousand can cover a lifetime of expenses even without the medical needs figured in? If a car manufacturer makes a faulty product that costs someones ability to work or their life then they are held responsible – so why not the physician? This whole idea of capping awards is absolutely ludicrous.