Submitted by NY family physician, Mar 7, 2008 10:57

Imposing surcharges and continually raising premiums will never solve the malpractice problem in NY, or in any other state. These are band-aids, and put the cart before the horse. The real problem is the amount of money awarded in "punitive damages" and physicians who are repeatedly sued for gross negligence or purposefull malpractice in order to make money. What the state (and country) needs is true tort reform: realistic caps on punitive damages, loss of license for physicians found to be negligent repeatedly, and a system that will eliminate the frivolous lawsuits that trial lawyers propagate for their own wealth. This system might include the requirement that the plaintiff (and/or their attorney) pays the legal fees for the defendant if they are found not guilty of negligence. This policy is used very effectively in other countries. The way the system works today, greedy people (the trial lawyers and their "victims") have nothing to lose, and a potential windfall of wealth to gain. Even the trial lawyers will agree that only a small percentage of physicians (about 5%) are responsible for the majority of malpractice award money. The vast majority of physicians work hard to be perfect in an inperfect world, working with the knowledge at hand in very stressful situations. They do not mean to hurt people; why then should they be punished with "punitive" damages? Of course, there are always a few doctors who ignore the Hippocratic Oath and place personal wealth ahead of ethics and the standard of care -- these are the doctors who should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law and lose their licenses, period. Instead of punitive damages for "innocent" malpractice, why not instead mandate additional training/supervision for the physician? Re-training and guidance would be much more effective in preventing future mistakes than simply awarding a patient $1 or 2 million or more. Lastly, I would like to address the comments made by "anonymous" on 12/27/07 at 1:34 PM - that perhaps physicians (such as neurosurgeons) should have their incomes capped by the state. For most physicians (especially those in primary care), our income is already "capped" - it is dictated by Medicare and the third-party insurers. Medicine is probably the only profession in the world where the doctor "asks" for a payment, but has to be satisfied with whatever the insurance company decides to pay. Usually this is a fraction of the submitted fee (and we have to wait months after providing our service to get this payment). Although I am envious of the specialists' income, I do not begrudge them entirely. Specialists such as neurosurgeons have to spend 5 years or more beyond the 11 years required to become a primary care physician. Med school tuition can be $40,000 a year, plus books/room/board. So I pose this question to "anonymous": if you feel neurosurgeons, and other high-paid specialists (who have dedicated their entire lives to saving others) are overpaid and should have their income capped, how do you feel about the actors and baseball players who make $100 million or $150 million for simply making people laugh or cheer? If you ask me, those are the sky-high salaries that are outrageously inappropriate in a country with millions of uninsured children and adults. Perhaps those are the deep-pockets that should be "eyed-upon." Bill Gates and Oprah are well known for their generous support of charities and public works; how many baseball players and other athletes could be said of the same? I urge all New Yorkers to write to their elected State and Federal officials to work towards true solutions of this problem, not the piece-meal and temporary fixes of surcharges and rate hikes. One interesting fact that I have heard is that State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (who is not very supportive of the physicians' concerns and patients' access to quality healthcare in NY) is on the payroll of Weitz & Luxembourg, one of the foremost trial lawyer firms in the country! I think it is a serious and substantial conflict of interest for him to have any influence whatsoever on this issue as he stands to gain or lose personally from the outcome. I implore all those concerned with this to also pose this question to state and federal officials. Mayor Bloomberg made it a point to avoid conflicts of interest with New York City's dealings with his company; Silver should do the same!!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.