How Are The Special Interests Treating Us This Morning?
From WNYC News, we have the latest on the fight over medical malpractice caps in Albany. Assemblyman Richard Gottfried is allied with patient safety, but does not sound confident about the result of the coming budget negotiations.
From Missouri, we get another reminder of the failure by tort “reformers” to focus on the source of medical malpractice litigation–negligent, or in this case, drunk physicians. How about a little dose of criminal liability to shape things up in the OR? Now there is some state legislation that makes sense and protects patients. Leave it to The Show Me State to show NYS legislators how it ought to be done. And here is a question for Albany’s legislators. How will caps on medical malpractice damages and a no-fault state fund for neurologically-damaged infants (NIIF) stop NYS’s own drunk doctors from severely injuring their unlucky patients? Just curious.
And it never hurts to be reminded that tort “reform” is a one-sided, anti-consumerist movement, funded by the likes of Big Tobacco, and siezed upon by insurance companies and hospitals that don’t like being held accountable for injuries and/or deaths to patients. So thank you, PA attorney David Fallk, and the Times Tribune, for pointing out that 98,000 patients per year are being killed by negligent medical treatment.
Who are the good folks behind tort “reform”? Not surprisingly, politicians facing indictment, such as NY’s own Sen. Kruger, who shilled for tort “reform” and his good friend, a negligent MD with a history of poor medical care.
And that will have to do it for this morning’s wrap up.
Update On Affront To Victims of Medical Negligence
The Big Boys of the print media are catching on to the injustice that may result if proposed anti-consumer legislation is passed in Albany. First, the usually conservative Forbes Magazine gives a begrudging nod to a powerful, yet sober post from Eric Turkewitz, author of the New York Personal Injury Law Blog. The Forbes post is entitled “New York Mulls Caps on Medical Malpractice Verdicts.” If you click on the Forbes link, you’ll get to a link to Eric’s blog, which is well worth the read. Or just go here.
Less surprising, but equally welcome, are two editorials in today’s New York Times. One is entitled “A Bad Deal on Malpractice.” It’s point is pretty simple. The proposed caps “will unfairly punish patients badly injured by medical negligence.” Instead, the best way to address the problematic malpractice system “is to greatly reduce the errors and bad outcomes that can lead to malpractice suits.”
The other editorial is entitled “Medicaid and the N.Y. Budget: Sensible Cuts, and Little Political Flak.” In it, the Times writes: “We urge lawmakers to force out a misguided cap on malpractice awards–a provision engineered by hospital leaders that would deprive many injured patients of fair compensation.”
The idea that improving on patient safety will reduce costs of litigating medical malpractice cases isn’t new, and I mentioned it again in a recent post. Perhaps what is new is that the facts underlying patient-safety success stories are getting new attention, possibly because of the stellar reputations enjoyed by institutions such as NY’s own NY Weill Cornell Medical Center, where OB/GYN errors and the costs associated with responding to them in court decreased astronomically in response to its own program (see highlighted post).
Let’s keep the facts, and the victims, in mind, as we continue to follow news surrounding this unfortunate legislative effort.
Voice of Reason Reaches Albany On Neurologically Impaired Infant Debate
Thanks to Assemblyman Rory Lancman, of Queens, the folks behind Gov. Cuomo’s Medicaid Redesign Team (MRT) have been presented with an alternative to their plan to establish a Neurologically Impaired Infant Fund (NIIF) to address compensation for infants hurt or killed during the delivery process. According to Capital Tonight, Mr. Lancman’s plan is pretty simple. Institute patient safety programs in OB/GYN departments in hospitals throughout New York State. Why not do so, when such a plan at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center brought unprecedented declines in morbidity/mortality, AND costs?
Well, one reason that has surfaced is that the Chief of the very hospital that achieved such remarkable results is now backpedaling about his achievement, as Capitol Confidential reveals. CEO Herbert Pardes trashes his own study, writing that it was conducted “over a limited period at a single institution.” Hmmm. Not NY Weill Cornell Medical Center, was it?
Much more work needs to be done, says Pardes, and Lancman’s proposal “would in no way be a substitute for enacting the serious program of malpractice reform proposed by the Governor.” Tellingly, Pardes has nothing concrete to substantiate his sudden preference for the MRT agenda. But don’t take my word for it. Read his letter yourself in the Capitol Confidential post.
I’m certain that Dr. Pardes’ stance was not influenced by The Greater New York Hospital Association or The Medical Society of the State of New York. Aren’t you?