Abstract This is a nursing proposal suggesting what nurses can do to reduce risk while strongly advocating caps on malpractice awards. The current legislature on malpractice caps and the level of reduced care to patients is discussed. The patients' own inability to afford service, the affordability to practice by physicians and their need to increase patients' costs for services by ordering many more than medically necessary are all covered.
From the Paper "There is a vicious cycle taking place in the world of healthcare that involves patients, attorneys, physicians and healthcare professionals and facilities and insurance companies. Medical malpractice premium rates are forcing doctors and nurse practitioners to order medically unnecessary tests and pad bills or fold their practices. According to the Center for Legal Policy (as cited by Stableford, 2005) "unnecessary medical tests and constant referrals to specialists for second and third opinions costs an unnecessary $60 billion to $100 billion." Law suits continue to climb at an alarming rate with unconscionable awards that are not consistent with something that can be measured tangibly. Attorneys play on the sympathy of juries for neurological deformities of infants that could have naturally occurred genetically, not necessarily as a result of medical error, yet huge awards for punitive damages are awarded."
Abstract This paper presents an argument against capping medical malpractice awards. The paper discusses several reasons why capping awards should not be adopted as public policy, contending that capping limits injured patients' access to justice.
From the Paper "Capping medical-malpractice awards should not be adopted as public policy. It would be grossly inappropriate for several reasons. The much-discussed crisis in medical care that doctors and insurers attribute to malpractice litigation is misdirected and can be traced to other causes. The idea that malpractice awards are out of control and are increasing all the time is simply wrong and cannot be sustained by the facts which suggests that attempts to cap award amounts for punitive damages are being made in bad
Abstract This paper explains that the main reason why caps should exist on malpractice suit is the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, which has forced many doctors to stop practicing medicine. The author points out that placing caps on malpractice awards might shield negligent doctors from being held accountable for their mistakes and might prevent patients from getting the monetary awards that match the economic and traumatic impact of the injuries they have incurred. The paper states that the solution to this issue is to place caps on malpractice awards; however, in extreme cases where negligence is apparent and the impact of such negligence is irrevocable, there must be exceptions to such caps.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Why Caps on Malpractice Awards
Why No Caps on Malpractice Awards
Discussion and Conclusion
From the Paper "The problems associated with malpractice awards came to the forefront in 2002 when a group of 60 specialists at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas refused to work because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Their actions caused the hospitals emergency room to shut down. This gave Nevada and the nation a glimpse of the public health crisis that could ensue if caps are not placed on Malpractice Awards. In the case of Las Vegas, legislatures came together and placed a $350,000 cap on the amount of money that a patient could receive as a non economic award in a malpractice case. However, lawmakers did attach to exceptions to the bill including "one involving cases where there is "gross malpractice". The other where there is "clear and convincing" evidence that an award should exceed the $350,000 cap."
This paper argues that tort reform would have precisely zero effect on the health insurance costs of Americans and would have very serious harmful effects on the lives of Americans who find it necessary to seek relief through a malpractice lawsuit.
1,935 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
Abstract This paper explains that tort reform, putting a cap on jury awards in malpractice suits, is exactly what the insurers want because, in addition to making a handsome profit on their medical malpractice lines as it stands, they would then have to pay out even less. The author points out that reducing consumer health insurance costs would be better served by a systematic effort to weed out bad doctors and prevent malpractice. The paper stresses that, even if there were a link between medical malpractice insurance costs and consumer health insurance costs, the culprit is the insurer itself because it is not allowed, by law, to raise rates in response to big payouts; insurers are allowed to raise rates when their projected investment income declines.
From the Paper "The suggestive portion of the NAIC findings is this: although malpractice insurance premiums make up such a small portion of health-care costs, medical malpractice as a line of insurance demonstrated the highest profit as a percentage of premiums (Stewart, 21+), making it very lucrative for the insurance companies. Further, losses paid by those insurers in 1991 came to only about 31 cents of every $100 of health care costs; remember, malpractice premiums accounted for 64 cents per $100 spent, leaving 33 cents for the company out of each $100. While the amount spent on malpractice insurance by the consumer, trough his or her medical expenditures, is negligible, there are a lot of people spending $100 frequently, massing up piles of 33 cents for the insurers."
Abstract This paper explains that medical malpractice only falls within the realms of negligence that occurs in the context of medical or health care, even though the basic legal issues involved in medical malpractice coincide with the legal elements that encompass common negligence. The paper further explains that there are four basic factors comprising medical malpractice that mirror those which define common negligence, but that there are additional requirements involved that expressly apply to negligence in a medical context. The paper then points out that, as a result of these additional requirements, medical malpractice cases also present many unique, complex and confusing issues that are exclusive to the medical profession. Next the paper elucidates on the issues, concluding that ultimately everything boils down to the question of which is more important;the rights of patients to expect quality treatment, or the obligation of physicians to provide it.
From the Paper "Medical malpractice is commonly defined as negligence on the part of a physician, hospital or other health care professional that results in physical or emotional damage to that health care professional's patient. The negligent failure in medical malpractice cases can occur under many different circumstances. These include, but are not limited to: an unnecessary delay in, or the complete failure to diagnose a particular disease or ailment, a surgical error during an operative procedure, failure on the part of the physician to gain the informed consent of the patient to perform surgery, and/or a failure to properly treat an ailment once it has been diagnosed. Improper use of a medical device or implant can also be grounds for a medical malpractice suit (Robertson, 1985)."
Tags: establishment, standard, care, proving, breach, causation, damages, proximate, cause
Abstract This paper examines different types of medical malpractice and questions the fairness of laws surrounding them. It addresses such cases as unnecessary surgery, medication errors, and errors in hospitals. The paper takes a look at the reasons why the US government is so concerned with the lawsuits regarding malpractice and the effects they have on the economy, the medical profession, and the duty of medical malpractice lawyers. The paper discusses conflicting views regarding the victims and the rights they have to receive compensation, versus the abuse of such laws in frivolous law suits. Reform concerns and regulation action are being addressed by the government, however results are slow to come. The paper argues that it is important to try to understand the victims involved, both doctors and patients, and rule on case-by-case basis. It concludes that learning to recognize the fair from the frivolous and continually reviewing ethical standards for medical professionals is one way to fight malicious malpractice myths.
From the Paper "Another area of medical malpractice to consider is that of Medication malpractice. In 2004 Vioxx became the latest drug to be taken of the market due to its side effects. Vioxx has been reported to cause "blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes" (adrugrecall.com). Such lawsuits that are taken on to recover damages suffered by taking prescription drugs fall under "product liability". In most cases the manufacturer "knew the drug would cause harm" yet pushed for FDA approval despite the highly abnormal side affects (adrugrecall.com). Another example would be that of the drug Fen Phen. This example shows us the drug companies opt for making settlements rather than to sacrifice the name of their company and reputation. Fen Phen was a diet drug that was linked to cause heart valve problems. Like a gold rush in California, people rushed to claim their "pot of gold" and jump on the Fen Phen, I'm a victim bandwagon. While working in a law firm I was trained to ask people while doing an initial consultation on the phone, if their disability claims could have resulted from such diet drugs taken. If so, we would sign'em up and proceeded to make a claim in the winnings for them. At the end of the statute of limitations, we were rushing to file paperwork to ensure we met the deadline for what I called the "late bloomers". The general public get outraged when they find out a medication they were given by a professional could potentially kill them, yet with most medicines we take, there are always some risk involved."
Abstract This paper defines medical malpractice and refers to nationally recognized nursing standards of care as well as the groundbreaking case "Pike v. Honsinger" where the New York State Court of Appeals formally set the standard for judging medical liabilities. The paper discusses four specific areas of patient safety for which nurses can be held at legal risk for possible malpractice and looks at the instances when a healthcare provider and other rescue workers can be protected from malpractice. The four key elements of medical malpractice cases that relate to nursing are explained as well as the value process that helps nurses to better understand what is truly important with their profession. The paper emphasizes that nurses can support patient advocacy by following simple procedures to ensure the best possible care.
From the Paper "The need for qualified registered nurses (RNs) has risen considerably in recent years, and failure to document patients correctly and medication errors has also risen significantly in the past five years. Patients expect nursing care to be performed by a competent staff member when they are admitted to a hospital or seeking various types of medical treatment. Nursing care is comprised of various duties of monitoring patients, accurately recording patient care and progress, completing nursing interventions, documentation of patient's care, and communicating with appropriate staff members when there is a change in the patient's condition."
Abstract This paper takes a look at the global problem of medical malpractice and examines the issues and objectives concerning the development and enforcement of policies that would limit malpractice awards. The paper also recommends a set of objectives, options and actions that nurses and others can actively take to reduce their risk.
Table of Contents
Abstracts
Caps on Medical Malpractice Awards
Background
Issue Statement
Stakeholders
Policy Objectives
Policy Alternatives
Summary -- Recommended Policy
From the Paper "That malpractice is an industry cannot be denied. Attorneys, professional lobbying agents and agencies wine and dine politicians for their cause. The media follows every move. People are employed and significant money flows through the economy all due to the increase in malpractice suits and the amount of awards. There are a number of factions that comprise the growth of the malpractice industry and have significantly affected its development including social, economic, ethical, political and legal factors."
Abstract This paper, presented as a research proposal, explores several topics relating to medical malpractice claims including whether or not increased claims result in decreased quality care. This paper discusses how on-going medical litigation impacts a patient's access to quality and specialized healthcare services. Thie researcher of this brief, yet concise, paper proposes to poll a sampling of 50 patients and 20 physicians using a tailored questionnaire to determine the extent to which patients and physicians feel malpractice claims have in fact impacted on the quality of healthcare. This writer also intends to analyze the medical malpractice claims from Denver's Bureau of Health Services from 1990 and up to the present.
Table of Contents:
Introduction/Background to Problem
Hypothesis
Literature Review
Research Design
References
From the Paper "Boulard cites many studies that clearly show the increasing costs of malpractice insurance affect specialist care. In 2002 alone more than 60 specialists at one critical care facility in Las Vegas left their jobs after another malpractice premium spike. The crisis results in closure of a 24-hour critical care center. The crisis emphases the potential for not only reduced care but complete lack of access to care for hundreds of patients in similar situations. While legislatures are working on solutions to such problems, the issue is far from resolved. In some medical facilities, physician assistants and nurse practitioners are performing procedures doctor's once did, simply because the cost of medical malpractice is too high for doctors to perform procedures themselves."
Tags: legal, medical, healthcare, lawsuit, patient, care, research, proposal
Abstract The paper discusses the concerns regarding traditional medical malpractice suits and explores mediation as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism. The paper explains mediation's potential advantages and how it is most useful in situations where both parties wish to maintain a long-term relationship. The paper discusses, however, how medical malpractice often involves a party being wronged who wants an enforceable decision and has no interest in maintaining contact with the other side. In this case, the paper explains that mediation will not be effective.
Outline:
Malpractice Dispute Resolution Methods
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Method of Mediation
The Viability of Mediation
The Questionable Aspects of Mediation
Conclusion
From the Paper "The issue of medical malpractice has increasingly grown as an issue in contemporary American society as lawyers and their message have proliferated. Doctors are no longer able to focus solely upon delivering the absolute best care they can, but must now worry about being sued should they have not followed the established procedures exactly. In such situations, when the result of the doctor's work is not what the patient or the patient's family is happy with, a malpractice suite may arrive. Medical malpractice litigation performs two primary functions. The first is that it deters physicians from lax, careless, or negligent behavior. Secondly, it is a means of compensation for the patients due to any of the above mentioned actions, on the part of either the hospital, doctor, or ancillary healthcare personnel. (Mechanic 1179) This practice however is quite costly and cumbersome."
Abstract This paper explains that the FDA and numerous other organizations report that prescriptions drugs cause an enormous number of preventable injuries and death resulting in "cap" laws, a rise in insurance costs, regulations on physicians and the death of innumerable innocent civilians. The author points out that, on the other hand, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that the costs associated with malpractice-buying insurance and paying out damage awards-amounts to less than two percent of America's skyrocketing healthcare expenses. The paper stresses that the problem of malpractice will not cease without the help of well trained doctors, honest and just politicians and insurance workers who value their customers.
From the Paper "In light of numerous large payouts associated with medical malpractice, President George W. Bush called for strict limits on medical malpractice suits, including a "cap of $250,000 on what victims and their families could recover for non-economic damages." He also inflicted an attack on lawyers fees, including a drop from thirty percent, to twenty on cases less than 600K. On cases exceeding 600K, he dropped twenty percent to fifteen percent. Now, let's look more in-depth. When taking on a malpractice suit, it immediately throws the victim and lawyer into a David and Goliath situation, and in light of Bush's bill, "David has lost his sling.""
Abstract The massive United States healthcare system plays an important place in society. Enormous amounts of money spent on health care, fail to a large degree in terms of healthiness or life expectancy. Medical malpractice aggravates this situation due to inflating costs. This paper analyzes how the legal system in the United States is putting pressure on the healthcare system, looks at ways that healthcare delivery has gotten more expensive and potentially more harmful or wary of risk. Tort reform is examined with the potential to help reduce medical costs, but does not seem to be a sufficient long-term goal. Finally, the paper explores the idea of medical courts or tribunals, specialized medical decision makers that could help to increase fair and reasonable judgments for medical malpractice claims.
Paper Outline:
The United States' Legal System is Killing Healthcare
The Impact of the Legal System on Healthcare in the United States
Tort Reform
Medical Courts and Medical Administrative Tribunals
Benefits of Medical Courts and/or Tribunals
From the Paper "The United States legal system, at both the state and federal level, has never had the direct impact on an industry as it has on the U.S. health care industry. Currently, outside of very lax civil procedure rules, anyone can bring a medical malpractice claim and receive compensation without any factual findings made by a judge or jury. In other words, claimants may receive compensation from defendants without proving their allegations. Parties in medical liability lawsuits can hire so-called experts who routinely testify for the plaintiffs or defendants and skew their testimony towards the side who paid them to testify."
Abstract The paper describes malpractice lawsuits as the threat of being held financially and professionally accountable for some observed and possibly human error in a high stress occupation with urgent conditions. The paper lists the four prerequisite elements in the specific legal standard of negligence that has evolved to prove culpability and notes how contrary to common perceptions, the law regarding negligence does tend towards protecting nurses. The paper discusses the use of settlements and how they make nurses look guilty or negligent at a level which is very likely disproportionate and unfair. The paper further discusses how hospitals' cost efficiency standards may limit a nurse's ability to do her best and leave her more open to malpractice suits. The paper concludes with the hope that negligence suits will serve the purpose that they were originally meant for: to protect and compensate patients for nurses that are truly negligent.
From the Paper "Nursing malpractice is primarily a legal issue, and a legal interpretation in its current form. This is not to say that it exists only in legal context, but to assert that malpractice in society has evolved through its definition by legal standards, and has become relevant to the workplace of the nurse because the legal ramifications, where the nurse can be held culpable for her action, or lack of actions, that result in the death, injury or failure to recover from a patient she treats. It brings into play a whole other level of liability and credibility for the nurse, who is not a legal expert, merely a public servant who has made a personal commitment to a social calling where she is attempting to do their best to heal and save those who have been injured or fallen sick before they ever see her."
Abstract This paper presents a proposal for a dissertation about the current health care crisis brought about as a result of rapidly increasing medical malpractice premiums. The paper explains the detrimental effects of such increases, the focus of each section in the proposed dissertation, the questionnaire and methodology to be used, and the intended goal of the dissertation.
From the Paper "During the last decade, medical malpractice premiums have increased exponentially, resulting in a decreased pool of qualified physicians operating in the medical arena. The medical industry is facing many crises, including rapidly increasing health insurance premiums which affect consumers directly. One arena consumers may not have considered evaluating however that of medical malpractice is."
