Medical Liability Reform

Problem

In state civil justice systems that lack reasonable limits on liability, multi-million dollar jury awards and settlements in medical liability cases have forced many insurance companies to either leave the market or substantially raise costs. Increasingly, physicians in these states are choosing to stop practicing medicine, abandon high-risk parts of their practices, or move their practices to other states.

ATRA's Position:

To help bring a degree of predictability and fairness to the civil justice system that is critical to solving the growing medical access and affordability crisis, ATRA recommends a medical liability reform packages that includes: (1) a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages; (2) a sliding scale for attorney’s contingent fees; (3) periodic payment of future damages; and (4) abolition of the collateral source.

Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar likes to argue that only insurance companies are to blame for the current medical liability crisis. Pointing to significant declines in the stock market, they blame insurance companies for raising rates to make up for allegedly irresponsible investing practices. But market fluctuations cannot fully explain the sharp increases in medical liability insurance pricing, especially since insurance companies invest only 13% of their total investments in stocks. A better explanation of why insurance companies have raised rates is that they have had to cover the cost of increased claim payments, which have risen almost three times the rate of inflation in recent years.

Medical Liability Reform- Pretrial Screening Panels: S.B. 214 (2005)

New Hampshire|2005

Created a pre-trial screening panel requiring all medical liability cases

[…]

Created a pre-trial screening panel requiring all medical liability cases go before a three person panel: a judge, an attorney & a health care practitioner of the same or similar specialty as the defendant. SB 214 does not restrict anyone’s right to a jury trial. The panel helps plaintiffs with smaller cases because panel expenses are less. SB 214 required the panel to decide negligence based on a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), thus encouraging the dropping of non-meritorious cases or quicker settlement of meritorious cases. Only unanimous decisions by the panel are admissible in any future trial. S.B. 214 also created a legislative oversight committee that will look at data over the next few years to determine if the new panel system is working. The bill required liability insurers to report certain data to the New Hampshire Department of Insurance annually.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform: Noneconomic Damages Reform:

New Hampshire

A New Hampshire law setting a $250,000 limit on noneconomic

[…]

A New Hampshire law setting a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases was held unconstitutional in Carson v. Maurer, 424 A.2d 825 (N.H. 1980). A $875,000 cap on noneconomic damages was held unconstitutional in Brannigan v. Usitalso, 587 A.2d 1232 (N.H. 1980)).