Friday, November 18, 2005
Tort reform in Washington: The screaming over, let's get back to work
The dust is now settling in Washington State after a tumultuous battle over malpractice reform. More than $14 million was spent by groups of lawyers, doctors, and insurers to encourage the support or opposition of ballot initiatives 330 and 336, which came before Washington voters on November 8. The citizens of Washington acted judiciously when they soundly defeated both of the initiatives.
I-330, sponsored primarily by regional insurance companies, would have imposed caps on jury rewards and limits on lawyers' fees in malpractice cases. The most pernicious of the initiative's provisions would have allowed doctors to have their patients sign away their right to sue before they administered care.
I-336, a retaliatory initiative organized by trial lawyers, would have enforced a three-strikes-and-your-out rule, revoking licenses of doctors who are found liable in three malpractices cases within a 10-year period.Of course, both of these initiatives have their virtues.
They both touch upon the frustrations and high costs associated with medical malpractice. But a responsible solution will not be found via high-intensity statewide ballot initiatives. In fact, Washington state legislators were already working out a good compromise before the November 8 vote, and now that the ballot initiatives have been defeated, the elected officials can go back to the drawing board and to "Plan B," the alternative approach originally proposed in March.
Washington's Plan B would encourage patients who feel they were mistreated to settle their cases through a voluntary system of arbitration. Arbitration would yield quicker and less costly resolutions than the traditional court system permits. Plan B would set a maximum award allotted through arbitration and it would impose limits on the number of expert witnesses allowed in each case. The plan would also encourage better error reporting from hospitals and doctors so that patient injuries can be minimized.While Plan B may not appease the opposing interest groups, it is a step in the right direction.
In particular, specialized judges would serve patients and physicians well, leading to more sensible and consistent verdicts than are likely to be handed down by juries. The proposals in Plan B advocate for a similarly prudent and just resolution. With the election over, it's time to mend hard feelings between opponents and return to constructive, progressive politics and blaze the trail in malpractice reform.
For more information:
"Picking Up Where Voters Left Off,"By Brad Shannon, Olympian, November 13, 2005:<http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS/511130340/1075>
"Doctors Concede Defeat on Malpractice Caps,"By Angela Galloway, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 9, 2005:<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/247638_medical09.html>
"Democrats offer solution to dueling malpractice initiatives,"Washington House Democrats, March 14, 2005:<http://www.sdc.wa.gov/Releases/Brown/2005/medmal.htm>
"Health Courts: Fair and Reliable Justice for Injured Patients,"By Nancy Udell and David B. Kendall,Progressive Policy Institute, February 17, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=138&contentid=253178>
"Alternative Justice for Injured Patients Proposed in Washington State,"PPI Health Policy Wire, March 31, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=900033&contentID=253262>
I-330, sponsored primarily by regional insurance companies, would have imposed caps on jury rewards and limits on lawyers' fees in malpractice cases. The most pernicious of the initiative's provisions would have allowed doctors to have their patients sign away their right to sue before they administered care.
I-336, a retaliatory initiative organized by trial lawyers, would have enforced a three-strikes-and-your-out rule, revoking licenses of doctors who are found liable in three malpractices cases within a 10-year period.Of course, both of these initiatives have their virtues.
They both touch upon the frustrations and high costs associated with medical malpractice. But a responsible solution will not be found via high-intensity statewide ballot initiatives. In fact, Washington state legislators were already working out a good compromise before the November 8 vote, and now that the ballot initiatives have been defeated, the elected officials can go back to the drawing board and to "Plan B," the alternative approach originally proposed in March.
Washington's Plan B would encourage patients who feel they were mistreated to settle their cases through a voluntary system of arbitration. Arbitration would yield quicker and less costly resolutions than the traditional court system permits. Plan B would set a maximum award allotted through arbitration and it would impose limits on the number of expert witnesses allowed in each case. The plan would also encourage better error reporting from hospitals and doctors so that patient injuries can be minimized.While Plan B may not appease the opposing interest groups, it is a step in the right direction.
In particular, specialized judges would serve patients and physicians well, leading to more sensible and consistent verdicts than are likely to be handed down by juries. The proposals in Plan B advocate for a similarly prudent and just resolution. With the election over, it's time to mend hard feelings between opponents and return to constructive, progressive politics and blaze the trail in malpractice reform.
For more information:
"Picking Up Where Voters Left Off,"By Brad Shannon, Olympian, November 13, 2005:<http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS/511130340/1075>
"Doctors Concede Defeat on Malpractice Caps,"By Angela Galloway, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 9, 2005:<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/247638_medical09.html>
"Democrats offer solution to dueling malpractice initiatives,"Washington House Democrats, March 14, 2005:<http://www.sdc.wa.gov/Releases/Brown/2005/medmal.htm>
"Health Courts: Fair and Reliable Justice for Injured Patients,"By Nancy Udell and David B. Kendall,Progressive Policy Institute, February 17, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=138&contentid=253178>
"Alternative Justice for Injured Patients Proposed in Washington State,"PPI Health Policy Wire, March 31, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=900033&contentID=253262>
