Malpractice-lawsuit fears begin the minute someone walks into the doctor's office with, say, a bump on his or her head.
"If I don't get a CAT scan, this is that one case where I'll end up in court," the doctor might think, Cecil Wilson, a physician who is president-elect of the American Medical Association, told The Wall Street Journal in an article examining tangible and unseen health-care costs.
Indirect costs that stem in part from medical professionals looking for legal protection play a far larger role in health-care spending, doctors and some analysts told the paper. And they are one reason medical liability is bubbling as an issue as Congress reviews whether to pass a health-care overhaul.
"There are significant savings that can be achieved in our health-care systems if we have prudent medical malpractice reform in place," Sen. Orrin Hatch said in a statement.
Many states have passed laws in recent years aimed at curbing liability claims, the Journal reported. A law passed in Texas in 2003 caps liability awards at $250,000 for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering, a move that has led to fewer malpractice suits being filed, according to several prominent plaintiffs' attorneys there. According to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, medical-liability-insurance rates have declined an average of 21% in the state since the law change, with almost a quarter of doctors seeing a 50% decrease.
The driving component of California's landmark legislation, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, is a $250,000 limit on non-economic damages awarded in a medical professional liability trial or arbitration.
In an amicus brief opposing a recent legal challenge to MICRA, CJAC General Counsel Fred Hiestand wrote that MICRA is a piece of well-crafted legislation that has stabilized medical malpractice insurance costs, assured public access to physicians and hospitals, and secured a fair legal procedure for plaintiffs to adjudicate their claims. Click here for more information.