So what's the solution? Some states have already limited malpractice liability but that hasn't done much to hold down costs. When patients are harmed by preventable medical errors they should be compensated.
So what's the solution? Some states have already limited malpractice liability but that hasn't done much to hold down costs. When patients are harmed by preventable medical errors they should be compensated.
The solution is NOT to decide on one problem at a time to all agree on solving by incremental compromise, or trust free market competition driving what is in reality a non-free market.
Most patients never file a lawsuit, even if things don't go well, and most injuries that aren't deaths or newsworthy are not worth the trouble to an "overburdened" court system itself imposing a lot of burdens.
And the quality life years lost waiting to share a verdict with attorneys ought to count for everyone affected, not just those who spearhead a trial by catastrophe.
I think the solution is to make the practice of medicine more scientific, and less dominated by competitive incentives, but as long as research and development, reform, or even consumer choice, is strictly a cost, that will be considered "too expensive", if not "too risky".
That's a non answer. The medical profession is already embracing evidence-based medicine as well as specific tools such as checklists and EHRs to reduce preventable errors. But there will always be some providers who are simply sloppy or incompetent or even malicious. Nothing else you proposed is actionable, just vague complaints and hand waving.
[dead]
When patients are harmed by quacks, it is a true problem and those quacks should be incarcerated and never allowed near medicine again. If there are too many quacks, then this is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed completely separately from malpractice and professional insurance.
When patients are harmed by medical errors caused by non-quacks, that's just tough luck. Not everyone can be saved. Creating a gigantic medical malpractice insurance industry so that a few hundred surviving families per year can have lottery jackpot settlements isn't a solution in any way, and has done very little to incentivize fewer errors.
That's a silly comment. There's a huge difference between establishing civil liability versus a criminal conviction, and rightly so. The quacks aren't going to be incarcerated.
I think instead of my comment being silly, it's just difficult for you to understand because your Overton window only allows people who agree with you but differ on how much compensation should be allowed and the particulars of how that compensation is decided and doled out.
I'm used to this though.