Medical Malpractice
White House Announces Grants to Study Med-Mal Alternatives
Posted Sep 18, 2009 7:41 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The White House has announced $25 million in grants to test alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits.
The accelerated grants of up to $3 million to states and health care systems will cover a variety of ideas, including programs in which physicians apologize for medical mistakes and offer restitution, the Associated Press reports. The Health and Human Services Department will determine which programs deserve money based on a review of what is working, according to the story.
The Washington Post characterizes the announcement as a move to ease the pain suffered by physicians who learned Wednesday that the latest health care bill offers nothing substantive to cut malpractice costs. The newspaper says the plan by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., “sidestepped the malpractice issue at the behest of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., a lawyer who received $1 million in campaign contributions in the first half of 2009 from lawyers and law firms.”
A Reid spokesman countered that the Democratic leader simply reminded Baucus that his committee doesn’t have jurisdiction over malpractice issues.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Sep 18, 2009 8:37 AM CST
Maybe someone will study careful doctors. If they can find any.
Flag this comment
Publicus
Sep 18, 2009 9:26 AM CST
The type of “tort reform” favored by the Republicans - which essentially takes away any meaningful remedy from a person injured by that 10%-15% of the medical community who are butchers with a license, is never going to happen. The plaintiff’s trial attorneys are too strong politically, especially sine this would deprive them of a primary income source. The only possibly viable remedy would be to impose the so-called “English Rule” - i.e., loser pays winner’s attorneys fees. It would make the plaintiff’s bar take a more objective look at some of the cases filed - and likewise make the insurers less willing to defend the to the death the clear examples of negligence and incompetence.
Flag this comment
Time
Sep 18, 2009 9:52 AM CST
Can the feds require states to change their civil procedure rules in tort cases to, let’s say, the “English Rule”? I suppose they can do the old…you won’t get any highway funds if you don’t change your rule thing.
Flag this comment
James
Sep 18, 2009 1:29 PM CST
The English Rule is a horrible idea. Despite what some of its proponents say, basing whether to file suit on the risk adverseness of the plaintiff or his lawyer rather than the merits of the case is a bad idea.
Streamlining discovery and motion practice in these cases is the answer.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.