Actually ..this is interesting… getting an inside look at physicians and lawyers perspectives.

Wish I had something worthwhile to contribute. Just taking it all in.

That could mean a lot of things. One possibility is that ~80% of suits do not involve provable negligence.

Another possibility is that juries and/or judges are, to some degree, biased against medical malpractice plaintiffs.

Another possibility is that standards for proving malpractice are too strict, but that lawyers have not come to terms with that, and are too optimistic.

Or some combination of those three and other possibilities. Correlation != causation.

As far as the bulk of your premiums going toward cases with no payment to the plaintiff, again I would ask to se the financial statements. And do you mean cases filed or overall claims?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba673

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba673

As you say, things are searchable. Here is one of many articles that explain the effects of Florida’s reform.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Is-Tort-Reform-the-Answer_-8315531-62718957.html

I have no problem with malpractice insurance covering malpractice. What I have a problem with is the insurnace having to cover the costs of the vast majority of cases that end with no payment to the plaintiff.

Do you mean 78% of all claims end with no payment to the claimant? And as to those that go to trial, I have typically heard 75% but I wouldn’t be surprised if once in awhile it goes to 80%. Although that doesn’t seem to be an argument AGAINST the jury system.

As to Florida’s limiting of attorney’s fees, do you have a link? I don’t doubt you, I’d just like to see the details. And I’m curious, do you think that’s a good thing for the government to be in the business of what two private parties can contract for? We may just have different philosophies regarding govt. regulation. And I think I also recognize more than you that as an individual, if I’m injured by someone’s negligence and they won’t pay, I don’t want the government hamstringing my attorney while the other side can pay whatever they want.

As to pay, most sources I’ve seen put average US physician pay a little north of $150K. Average physician pay is around $100K. And average UK physician salary, as best I can tell from the stats I can find, is about 25% less than that in the US. All those numbers are easily searchable.

Trial attorneys (by which I assume you mean plaintiff’s attorneys who represent individuals like you and I in negligence claims) have no control over what you do. You can do whatever you want. They do help individuals like us hold others accountable if their negligence harms us, though.

As to your data, how much do you believe you should have to pay to cover the potential cost of your errors? If you got to keep that money in your pocket, how much would you set aside to pay for those errors? And how much would damage caps reduce that figure?

As to the profitability of your insurer, can you provide a link to their financial statements so we can see just how profitable they are and where those profits and losses come from? Forgive me if I don’t buy every insurer’s line that they are losing money constantly and where their money goes.

You are right in that I do not know how much malpractice is committed. I do know that in my state 78% of all medmal suits end with no payment to the plaintiff and of the cases that go to trial over 80% are decided for the defense. I am supprised you dont know that Florida has limited attorney fees by constitutional amendment. As to payment, in the UK physicans only have to work for the NHS 36 hours a week. As to a pay cut, just how much do you think physicians make? I can assure you that an internist, pediatrician and family practive doc make far less than your average attorney.

Do I want a NHS here. No. I want to practice medicine where I can give my patients their options and let them decide what they want done as opposed to trial attorneys, governments and insurance providers. I want patients to pay for what they get, not to offset the trial lawyer industry.

Here is an interesting bit of data. It costs $7.18 for every patient appointment in our practice just to cover the medmal insurance. Where does that money go. It goes into the mutual insurance fund. (Medmal insurance is not some high proffit company, ours like many others is a mutual). That fund is used primarily to handle all the court costs for all the 78% of cases that end without settlement.

I agree with you there has not been. Nor will there be. For one simple fact. The real backers of tort reform, the insurance industry and tobacco industry, aren’t really interested in standards of care and such. Because they can’t guarantee those things will protect THEIR interests, which is keeping more money in their pocket. Brighter line rules don’t really help them, and in fact, it could lead to more people figuring out they have claims. They’re interested in reducing their exposure, period. You can wax poetic about the reform you propose, and again we’ll probably agree, but in the real world it’s all about damage caps. Nothing more, nothing less. That is what I oppose vehemently. What you’re talking about sounds interesting, and if it reaches a stage beyond idle chat to serious legislative discussion, then perhaps it will be relevant to the current debate.

You make all these statements about “if I do X, I still get sued.” Except you have no idea if that’s true. Again, you have no idea how much malpractice is committed, or even how many suits are filed. It’s likely that the vast majority of malpractice never even sniffs a claim file. You’re reaching conclusions without any evidence whatsoever.

If you want to adopt UK healthcare and legal systems, that’s fine. You ready for the pay cut?

As to Florida, I don’t know what you’re talking about – got a link? What you’re saying doesn’t seem to make much sense in terms of hourly fees plus contingency. As far as the government limiting attorney’s fees between two contracting parties, I would oppose that no matter what industry we were talking about. The less the government has to do with business relationships between individuals, the better, I believe. You may be more of a big government nanny state type though, and that’s probably a political philosophy difference we can’t resolve.