Malpractice Rates
Here is a welcome news alert sent out by the ISMA and the Department of Insurance.
It appears that malpractice rates in Indiana may actually go down slightly.
This is rare but very good news.
It appears that malpractice rates in Indiana may actually go down slightly.
This is rare but very good news.
Labels: insurance, malpractice
posted by Anonymous at 5:52 AM
4 Comments:
Its interesting that by their own admission, this is the first and only reduction in premiums since the creation of the medical malpractice act in Indiana in 1976, which was designed to reduce premiums at the expense of those injured by malpractice by capping the awards to injured persons. I would argue that for the past 31 years, the "system" hasn't helped anyone other than insurers. At least the physicians are finally, for once, seeing the benefit of the act.
I still don't comprehend any justice in capping the awards to injured persons. The only one who benefits is the insurance company. I have a friend who was the victim of a poorly performed procedure and now has permanent physical limitations that have altered his life dramatically, i.e., he is paralyzed. The expense to him and his family has been hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cap set by the medical malpractice act is a pittance of the money he has incurred for medical expenses, not to mention what he will spend the rest of his life. Add these medical expenses to the other ones like altering his home to make it handicap accessible and you have 3/4 of a million dollars spent already. And the damage done forced him to lose his job. Now consider the continuous pain he is in and the effects of all this to his family and you have a true catastrophy.
I am glad for you Dr. Dan that your insurance premiums will decrease...but at what expense? For some reason, I cannot jump up and click my heals for joy.
There has to be a better solution. The cap needs to be raised. It currently is around $300,000. Times have changed and this needs to be revisited. Unfortuantely the general public is unaware of this imbalance...at least unaware until it affects them. I wonder if more people knew if there would be a bigger effort for reform of this issue.
The cap is actually $250,000 against the health care provider, with a potential $1 million available from the Patient's Compensation fund. But, the 1:19 poster above is correct that many times, past medical expenses and future medical expenses can exceed most, if not all of the cap.
And, addressing any forthcoming arguments about attorney's fees...they're capped at 15% too by the Act for the recovery from the fund.
WHEN WILL THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY LEARN THAT THE ONLY ONE WHO WINS FROM 98% OF THESE LAWSUITS ARE THE LAWYERS. I HAVE PRACTICED MEDICINE FOR 25 YEARS AND HAVE HAD 4 NUISANCE SUITS FILED AGAINST ME THAT COST ME AND MY INS CO. THOUSANDS AND YET WHEN I WON WAS I RECOMPENSATED- NO. SURE-THERE ARE THOSE WHO DONT GET ENOUGH BUT THAT IS VERY RARE. HOW ABOUT THOSE VERDICTS SUCH AS 100MILLION FOR THE HOT CUP OF MCDONALDS COFFEE.---LAWSUITS COST THIS COUNTRY BILLIONS AND CAN ONLY BE STYMIED IF THIS COUNTRY WOULD FOLLOW THE ADAGE LOSER PAYS AS IN MOST OTHER COUNTRIES. --I PAY $25000.00 A YEAR IN INSURANCE AND THAT IS 20 % WHAT I MAKE-- ADD ALL THE OTHER INSURANCES I REQUIRE TO RUN A BUSINES AND THATS 40% OF MY INCOME-- LAWYERS RULE-- THATS WHAT MY KIDS ARE GOING TO BE-- NOT DOCTORS-- AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN 10 YEARS WHEN NONE OF THE DOCTORS SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home