CONTENTS:
- Study finds settling is better than going to trial
- Some plaintiffs just don’t quit
- Malpractice claims frequency “mysteriously” declining (scroll down for article)
- Intensity of care does not equal quality of care
Study finds settling is better than going to trial
Statistically, settling a case before trial has a better payout than going to trial. That is the lesson of a study of civil lawsuits [by Randall Kiser] to be published in the September issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. The authors found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer, wit a decision error rate of 81 percent. A NY Times pre-publication summary of the study is available here (though it is all over the internet already.).
An attorney views this data and relates it to his own State of Wisconsin here.
Some plaintiffs just don’t quit
A negligence lawyer’s gaffe has a New York urologist breathing easier these days. The urologist is off the hook in a malpractice suit while the plaintiff attorney is being sued.
Malpractice claims frequency “mysteriously” declining
According to Physicians Insurance, malpractice claim frequency in Washington State dropped from 8.5 claims per 1000 insureds in 2001 to 5.4 claims per 100 insureds in 2007, a 36% decrease. In the July issue of WSMA Reports, Mary Lou Misrahy, company President and CEO, lists the following 8 possible reasons for this phenomenon.
• Several years ago some companies stopped underwriting questionable risks. So, on average, the physicians insured by companies that made these tough decisions may present a lower risk of claims.
• Washington now requires a physician’s certificate of merit for each lawsuit. Additionally, attorneys must certify that a lawsuit is not frivolous, subject to sanctions. This screening may prevent frivolous lawsuits.
• The media has educated some members of the public on the impact of litigation on the health care delivery system. Therefore, some patients may choose not to file meritless claims, and juries may be reluctant to award high verdicts.
• Recent “I’m sorry” legislation encourages physician-patient communication after a bad outcome. Allowing physicians to express sympathy for what happened may help physicians and patients keep the lines of communication open, which may in turn prevent some claims.
• The cost of a plaintiff ’s malpractice lawsuit is often borne by the attorney, and the costs can be recovered only if the plaintiff wins. Because expert-witness fees can run into the thousands of dollars, plaintiff attorneys may be reluctant to file a case if the chances of winning are not high.
• The recent upsurge in the use of electronic medical records means that patient data is available to more
doctors on call. This may increase the likelihood that critical data is transmitted quickly to physicians—
even physicians who see patients for the first time in an emergency. Therefore, medication errors and misdiagnoses may be less frequent.
• Patient safety initiatives are eliminating system issues that could lead to medical professional liability insurance claims. For example, in an effort to reduce medical errors, Washington recently passed legislation requiring physicians to print or type prescriptions.
• Organizations such as Physicians Insurance, the Washington State Medical Association, the Washington
Health Foundation, and the Washington Patient Safety Coalition are working to dramatically increase patient safety in our state.
Intensity of care does not equal quality of care
In the “Perspectives” column of the May/June issue of this bulletin, the findings of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care were highlighted. The report found a discrepancy between quality and intensity of care, i.e., hospitals providing the most intense care did not always rank highly in terms of quality. The findings of the Dartmouth study have now been published in “Preceptor,” a supplement to WSMA Reports.