According to a post recently posted on Insurancenewsnet.com, by the Associated Press (AP), "Health Representatives look at Malpractice Changes," President Obama has started to compromise on the requirement for alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits.
Opponents to changing the malpractice system claim that malpractice reform will have an unimportant impact on lowering the cost of health care. I firmly disagree with this view. Tort reform is a chief piece of the health reform puzzle and deserves ample consideration as we work to attain a better health care system. You can visit http://www.247lawsuitnews.com/medical-device-lawsuit-news.shtml to get more info on medical malpractice lawsuit.
Tort reform is not "The solution" to the health care problem but to put your head in the sand like some representatives have on the subject is foolishness. Most advocates of offense reform for medical malpractice believe (and this was told by President Obama in his speech last Wednesday) that terror of lawsuits drives doctors to perform needless tests sometimes in redundancy in order to avert malpractice suits.
How does the practice of over examining to defend against lawsuits not add to the absurd cost of health care in America? There are few solutions outlined in the AP article that is used in combination with one another may have a positive influence. You can hop over to this website to read the latest news on medical malpractice.
The first idea includes incentives to medics and hospitals for "early disclosure" of errors and offering restitution outside of the court system.
The second idea involves creating a team of experts that would examine malpractice cases before they were allowed to go to trial in an effort to clear out frivolous lawsuits (according to the AP article this was passed in Tennessee last year, malpractice lawsuits got reduced 69% and malpractice premiums are assessed to drop 2.5% next year).
The third idea includes the creation of new court system precisely designed to handle malpractice cases. All judges that would preside in this court would have to be skilled in the medical field. The idea being that judges with medical backgrounds would be able to make more cognizant decisions with less emotional bias.