A story in Sunday's Business section about the growing use of arbitration by doctors in an effort to hold down medical malpractice costs attracted feedback from lawyers and others.
Inquirer staff writer Stacey Burling's story showed how area doctors have been asking patients to sign away their right to a jury trial. Instead, disputes would be handled with binding arbitration outside the court system.
A lawyer with Shrager, Spivey & Sachs in Philadelphia writes on his blog that the article should have included patients who had attempted to sue only to realize they'd signed their rights away.
Ms. Burling should have interviewed a representative of "Give Me Back My Rights," a group funded in part by AARP to raise consumer awareness about the dangers of binding mandatory arbitration.
Comments (2)
If replacing courtroom trials with arbitration improves medical care and lowers cost that will benefit most Americans. The trial lawyers hope that most disagreements will be settled out of court (quicker and easier money) with the infrequent visible trial to showcase their skills. Since most legislators are lawyers, good luck in getting the laws changed to support arbitration.
I believe that most people will support arbitration if they feel comfortable that claims disputes will be resolved equitably, and that real medical foul-ups will receive proper attention and that the patient will be justly compensated. If people see most disputes arbitrated in favor of the doctor, hospital or HMO/PPO, they will never support arbitration. Statistics on success rates and frivolous law suits may help convince patients.
I am not involved with arbitration. I have always been exceptionally healthy and did not buy medical insurance when I was not employed by a company that provided healthcare. Arbitration can be one intermediate step to a universal health care system.
Reading stories in AARP publications and others stimulate me to look for sensible solutions. It appears that the US will never have a single payer, or equivalent health care system (too much influence from pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, trial lawyers and doctor lobbies). A single payer system would most likely include a cap on claims and a reserve fund to pay for medical malpractice claims.
I worked closely with a hospital management company - their revenue shortfalls came from uninsured patients, Medicaid/Medicare payments lower than actual costs, and legal costs defending lawsuits. Arbitration would only help solve one of these issues. Maybe the healthcare system has to go bankrupt before drastic action is taken. Where are all the uninsured and underinsured people in the political process?
Posted by Dave Savage | February 13, 2008 10:04 AM
Posted on February 13, 2008 10:04
I work in the industry. 70% of all lawsuits brought against physicians are dropped by the plaintiffs, with no payment being made against the physician. No cost is incurred by the plaintiff. What would happen if we could cut that number in half?
We have a shortage of physicians in this state, but not attorneys. Ever ask yourself why? Are the attorneys limited in their compensation? Are attorneys subject to caps on what they can collect from each client?
Those with legitimate injuries should be compensated. The problem is that less that 1/2 of the dollars in the system actually go to the patients.
Posted by jf | February 11, 2008 4:22 PM
Posted on February 11, 2008 16:22