WATCH OUT – THE CONNECTICUT MEDICAL SOCIETY IS AIMING TO STEAL YOUR LUNCH

WATCH OUT – THE CONNECTICUT MEDICAL SOCIETY IS AIMING TO STEAL YOUR LUNCH

I just received a copy of the Connecticut State Medical Society’s (“CSMS”) 2007 Legislative Agenda. It seems the doctors’ lobbying organization is gearing up to try to abscond with your constitutional rights again, despite clear cut evidence that recent reforms enacted by the state legislature have already dramatically increased the profits of the malpractice insurance companies. Obviously the State Medical Society would rather take from patients rather than fight the just battle with the insurance companies. Ironically, one of the major insurance companies in Connecticut is CMIC, a doctor owned and operated malpractice insurer. But seriously, why is it that the doctors haven’t established as a legislative goal the accountability of the insurance industry?

Beyond its desire to overhaul the legal system to give a special interest group protections and privileges that no one else has, the Medical Society wants to press for a special court system to deal with health issues. Naturally, there is no objective evidence that leads to the conclusion that judges and juries are not fully capable of resolving health care disputes. There is no evidence that the decisions of juries have been inappropriate. And this concept of health courts is just a ploy to have the medical industry hijack the justice system. The Center for Justice and Democracy has exposed the following myths of the health court proposal:

Health "Courts" Are a Terrible Option for Patients

Health courts are a political coup for insurance companies and a nightmare for injured patients. Here’s why:
Bias
While proposals vary, in every health “court” scheme, the decision-making authority is put in hands of either the hospital or insurer involved, or “experts” appointed and commissioned by a panel heavily weighted toward health industry representatives.
These proposals take critical decisions away from unbiased judges and juries, despite consistent empirical studies showing juries to be competent, effective, fair decision makers able to handle complex cases, and supported by the public as the best arbiter of disputes.
Burden
Unlike other administrative compensation schemes, such as workers compensation, heath “courts” are not “no-fault” models. Health courts are based on an “avoidability” standard, which is similar to negligence. In other words, patients would still have a high burden to prove, but would have none of the protections the legal system provides. And patients will find it harder to get an attorney.
Benefits slashed
Compensation for injuries under health “courts” will be determined by a “schedule” developed by political appointees (e.g., a certain amount for a lost eye or severed limb) instead of decided on a case-by-case basis by a jury. There is no room for consideration of circumstances.
The compensation schemes will be modeled after a similar program in Sweden, but without adjusting for Sweden’s array of public benefits that offset costs.
Like other administrative schemes, benefits will inevitably be reduced in future years as politicians try to appease insurers and hospitals, which in the case of workers’ comp has left many permanently injured individuals barely able to survive.
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_HealthCourtsMyth1.htm

Another interesting tidbit found in the Legislative Agenda of the CSMS is a desire to review existing definitions of the word “surgery”. Undoubtedly, there is some turf war going on and some members of the CSMS are concerned over who, what, when or where surgery can be performed. But the Agenda says that the Medical Society is going to review definitions of the word “surgery” from “authoritative sources.” The use of the phrase “authoritative source” is amusing because no defense expert medical witness has ever agreed that there is anything called an “authoritative source”. It’s one of the oldest and most disingenuous tricks of the defense. Under old rules of evidence, an expert’s opinion could be called into question or “impeached” if the expert admitted that a source (peer reviewed periodical, textbook or treatise) was authoritative. So each witness has been coached to never admit that a publication is authoritative. It would not matter if every obstetrician subscribed to or read a particular journal. It would not matter if every surgeon had the same textbook. It would not matter if every medical library had the same treatise. It is never authoritative. So why would the Connecticut State Medical Society state that it is going to review “authoritative sources” concerning the definitions of “surgery”?
Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLCwww.casperdetoledo.com