The people who claim to advocate medical tort reform don't seem to understand what it entails. Aside from a half-dozen sociopaths, I'm not aware of anyone who is saying that doctors and hospitals should not be held to any standard of professional care and accountability. The overwhelming cost of dealing with medical malpractice arises because there is malpractice. Not all of the cost of malpractice is recovered from doctors. Many patients are suffering today because of medical malpractice and they got nothing for it. Malpractice and the subsequent expense of malpractice will not disappear unless doctors start to clean up their act.
The proposals that are most loudly bandied about are to cap non-economic damages. The reality is that much of the money awarded for pain and suffering is used to pay the lawyer. Rarely does a victim of malpractice get made completely whole. Far more rare is the event that the victim or an heir manages to get rich. Estimates about how much will be saved seem not to match the actual observed costs. The GOP advocates are attacking trial lawyers. They don't care about the victims of malpractice.
Yes, it is troubling that pain and suffering tends to be the euphemism for legal bills. Yes, there may be a few cases that had runaway juries. It doesn't matter. Reform would need to include direct recovery for legal costs. It needs to make sure that the victim of medical malpractice is made whole. The states that tried reform didn't see much change in the cost of medical malpractice insurance.
Doctors who claim to be over-treating because they are 'afraid of being sued' are either incredibly ignorant or totally dishonest. Treating to the standard of care is a defense in a malpractice case. It's not always a perfect defense because it may turn out that the local standard of care is not adequate and that others do much better. Over-treating is almost always to improve the doctor's bottom line. I would not believe any doctor who told me that he routinely over-treated because he was afraid of being sued. I wouldn't go to such a doctor or trust him to provide competent, honest medical care.
I strongly support a reform that works the way workers' compensation was intended to work. If something goes wrong while you are in the hospital or being treated by a doctor, there will be an investigation. You will not be held responsible for any costs related to the problems whether or not the doctor or other professionals behaved in an irresponsible manner. Rather than award something called pain and suffering, an award would be made for permanent or temporary harm done, again, in the manner that workers' compensation was originally envisioned.
The investigation will be used to improve procedures and only in cases in which the health care professionals refuse to cooperate or were flagrant in their refusal to follow standard protocols would they be punished by suspending or revoking their license or other appropriate action.
Victims of medical malpractice should not have to engage an attorney. They should not have to fight for years to have their problems taken care of. They should not be impoverished because a doctor didn't do his job right. It is the responsibility of the doctors and hospitals to do their best to make their victim whole. I will support reform, but I don't think for a second that lawsuit reform alone will save us anything but pocket change. The real reform that will save money -- and lives -- is the one that doctors and hospitals have to engage in. Let's have malpractice reform, not just try to make the victims bear more of the costs.