From the Houston Chronicle:

May 11, 2004, 8:25PM
Proposition 12 has taken a human toll in Texas
By DAN LAMBE
Do not try to tell one particular cancer patient in Gainesville that the insurance-industry backed changes in Texas' civil justice system, which passed in 2003, are having a positive effect on health care in Texas. This North Texas resident is face to face with the bad public policy written by Austin politicians at the behest of special-interest lobbyists. Unfortunately, his tale is just one chapter in the growing tragedy resulting from trampled constitutional rights and broken political promises. In January 2003, doctors told this patient he had inoperable prostate cancer - a disease that is often successfully treated with early detection. As he came to terms with a potential life expectancy of mere months, he was shocked to discover that his medical test results from years before had indicated signs of prostate cancer - but doctors dismissed those multiple findings as lab error and chose not to inform him of the results. Apparent medical negligence shut his window of opportunity to treat the disease. Adding insult to injury, the two pieces of legislation - House Bill 4 and constitutional amendment Proposition 12 - are robbing this patient and his family of the choice to hold his careless health-care providers accountable for dismissing the warnings that could have saved his life. Prior to the passage of these constitutional limitations, the patient and his family would have been able to file a legal claim in order to hold his careless providers accountable. Today, the passage of these radical new laws has effectively robbed them of this choice. After 40 years of marriage, raising his children, paying off the family farm and finishing a long career in manufacturing in North Texas, he has found that the state Legislature has decided his life is worth only $250,000. Under the defendant-friendly $250,000 cap imposed on Texas' judges and juries, the costs of mounting a case could easily exceed the recovery possible. Quite simply, when a patient harmed by malpractice is someone without significant wage loss - such as a retiree, nonworking spouse or a child
- insurance company lawyers can easily run up the costs of pursuing a case to the point that filing the case doesn't make sense. To the broader Texas community, this means that many bad doctors, careless hospitals and negligent nursing homes are not being held accountable when they injure or kill innocent patients. No matter how much certain politicians and insurance industry mouthpieces attempt to sugarcoat the impact of HB4 and Prop. 12, the early signs affirm what happens when special interests are allowed to dictate policy-making. Despite promises of lowered insurance rates and a more affordable health-care system:
* In an April 22 House of Representatives hearing, the commissioner of insurance conceded that 60 percent of Texas doctors had seen no decrease in rates for medical malpractice insurance.
* Since the passage of Prop. 12, medical malpractice insurers in Texas are trying to raise rates by up to 35 percent for doctors, exploiting legal loopholes to escape regulatory oversight, and one company has stopped issuing policies altogether.
* Costs for doctor's office visits, hospital treatments, nursing home stays and prescription drugs are continuing to increase, further reducing patients' access to health care in Texas. All of this is happening while property and casualty insurance companies, including those who write medical malpractice insurance, reported a 900 percent increase in profits between 2002 and 2003. These facts of failed promises only tell part of the legacy of HB4 and Prop. 12. We'll only know the true impact when we determine whether or not we are creating a safer health-care system. Are we keeping dangerous professionals from harming our families? Are we increasing access to health care or simply padding the profits of the insurance and medical industries? Most Texans agree that true tort reform means passing laws to hold irresponsible insurance companies, HMOs and other wrongdoers more accountable for their actions, not less. One cancer patient in Gainesville will tell you that where it really counts: HB4 and Prop. 12 are failing Texas families. Lambe is executive director of Texas Watch, a a nonpartisan statewide consumer research and advocacy organization.

I wonder if Mr. Lambe would agree that plaintiffs would benefit from a reform that made their lawyers take the lesser of the usual one-third of any settlement or judgment, plus costs, or a maximum, audited hourly rate. That might put more $ in the hands of clients.

What amount is a life worth anyway and how much insurance should a doctor or hospital have? Should a jury be allowed to put a clinic or hosptial out of business, depriving whole communities of medical care, because a doctor, nurse, lab technician or others were simply human, and without malice or intent, made a mistake?

Malpractice insurance is stupid. Doctors should have to pay out of their own pocket should they be found guilty of negligence. What malpractice insurance says, to me at least, is that if I'm covered if somehow through my own negligence I cause a whole lot of pain and suffering. Accident insurance yes, negligence no.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

On the contrary, how much do you think an injured party would collect from any professional without liability or errors & omission insurance? Well, after the defendant is done filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy, probably zero. Then, what would prevent "bad" plaintiffs and their lawyers (heavens to betsy, you think?) from bringing nuisance suits against professionals, knowing that they stand a better chance of settlement with the defendant facing paying for legal defense costs out of pocket. Is it really so much different than homeowner's insurance . . . under your theory, homeowner's insurance is stupid, every homeowner should pay out of pocket, potentially lose their homes, if anyone is injured on the property.

Didn't think about that bankruptcy thing. Just running my mouth, although I managed to add at the end accident yes, negligence no.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

And would you agree that if you took a pay cut your employer could pass those savings along to the ultimate consumer?

Why should we (in this case, "we" = us capitalist pigs) demand free markets without government interference for all goods and services but want to call the law in on lawyers? Why can't they play in a free market, too?

B

Well, I didn't want all the liti-"gators" off the hook, since it still takes two to tango. Plaintiff's lawyers are generally hard working and work for their client's best interests and many times end up writing off bad cases and clients after fronting a lot of pretrial costs. The contingency fee agreement, does makes legal representation available to plaintiffs who might not otherwise be able to afford representation. Good things, but like so many other good things, subject to abuse by a minority of members of the profession. In some cases, the "victory for justice" turns out to be "to the victor go the spoils" with cases that are just thinly veiled extortion attempts.

Exactamundo

Well, what is this "free market" that you speak of and where can I buy from it . . . today? Soft woods from Canada? US steel? Underwear from China? Price supports and subsidies for virtually every American agricultural and farm segment that supresses third world agriculture from being anything other than subsistence? Please tell me you found a free market.

Because this or that commodity or service is subsidized means that we should:

A) Control all good and services and markets
B) Remove controls wherever possible.

B

It's just that I thought I read "free market" in the reply posts, but like a lot of the nonsense thrown around here, it's an ideal or theory, just not based on fact or the reality of the world as it exists in the early 21st Century.