Skip to content


New study: Fewer medical malpractice cases are brought when errors are admitted

From  yesterday’s issue of Bloomberg/BusinessWeek, we further evidence confirming the fact that when Doctors admit that they made a mistake in providing care to their patients and offer compensation, it is less likely that a medical malpractice suit will be brought as well as leading to a faster resolution of disputes and decreased legal costs. While the findings of this study conducted by the University of Michigan Health System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital which is referenced in the article might seem like a no-brainer,  the author of the story is quick to point out the reality is that “Traditionally, doctors and risk managers have feared that admitting fault invites lawsuits and amounts to handing over a “blank check” to attorneys.”

The key graphs from the article are:

“Lots of people say that if we do the right thing and disclose errors, malpractice claims and liability will ruin it,” [the study's author] said. “What our findings show is it can be done, and in fact, liability costs and claims actually got better.”

Researchers from the University of Michigan Health System, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues analyzed records on 1,131 malpractice claims, or requests for compensation due to medical error, between 1995 and 2007, which covered several years before and after the program was implemented.

After health care providers began admitting mistakes, apologizing and offering compensation, the monthly rate for new claims fell from just over seven per 100,000 patient encounters to 4.52 per 100,000, or 36 percent.

The average monthly rate of malpractice lawsuits filed against the hospital fell by more than half, from 2.13 per 100,000 patient encounters to 0.75 per 100,000.

The median time it took to resolve claims also dropped by several months, while the mean costs for liability, including compensating patients and paying attorneys, fell by about 60 percent. The average cost for lawsuits that were filed decreased, from nearly $406,000 to $228,000.

As one biostatistics professor involved in the study then goes on to explain, these findings suggest that because the fear of being sued for malpractice often causes  physicians to preform more costly diagnostic tests than they believe in their opinion are really necessary, instituting a practice of full and honest disclosure could potentially help lower the costs of health care in general.

All of this evidence is certainly important to keep in mind then next time you hear someone claiming that litigious trial lawyers are driving up the costs of healthcare because of higher premiums.

Posted in Hospitals, Studies.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , .


Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-10

Powered by Twitter Tools

Posted in Twitter.


Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-12-27

Powered by Twitter Tools

Posted in Twitter.


Why insurance companies have contributed to this country’s health care crisis

Here are two additional must-read reports  (.pdf downloads) from the American Association of Justice’s research department. The first report I recommend is: Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse and the second  is: Five Myths About Medical Negligence.

What do you think about the findings from these reports? Be sure to create an account or sign in to WordPress on the upper-right hand corner of the blog’s dashboard and leave your comments below!

Posted in Updates.


Interesting KBR story in the news

Here’s an interesting story in the news from today’s Houston Chronicle about a lawsuit against US contractor KBR’s activities in Iraq. The story revolves around an incident in 2004, during which a military contractor truck convoy iwas ambushed by insurgents, leading to six civilian truck drivers being killed and others injured – and whether or not someone should have stepped in and proactively stopped the convoy.

According to the Chronicle, US District Judge Gray Miller previously ruled that the US Army had “control” over KBR’s activities, meaning that once the military made the decision to send the convoy out, the private contractor no longer had effective decision-making authority to stop the order. However, an appellate court subsuquentlu sent the case back for him to Miller, and that now, the “legal landscape may look different after months of pretrial information gathering.”

For example (quoting from the article):

Internal KBR e-mails from April 8 and 9 suggest many KBR supervisors did not believe they were constrained by military orders — a constraint that is central to KBR’s defense in the federal case. KBR declined to discuss individual e-mails for this story.

Some examples of e-mails on the question of who had the authority to decide whether convoys proceeded:

• “You, your team or any individual (as you have previously indicated to everyone in theater), have the right to say no to anything that is unsafe or where security is not available.”— T.J. Lopez, KBR senior vice president for government and infrastructure.

• “We need to work with the Army without a doubt relative to stopping convoys, but if we in management believe the Army is asking us to put our KBR employees in danger that we are not willing to accept then we will refuse to go . . . We cannot allow the Army to push us or to put our people in harm’s way …” — Tom Crum, KBR Middle East regional chief operating officer.

• “All — no KBR convoys will move tomorrow, 10th April 04. I will inform the military chain of command.” — KBR supervisor Craig Peterson to employees.

• “KBR will not execute convoys tomorrow, 10 April 04 . . . I appreciate the challenges that this decision causes your operation. We cannot continue to put these drivers at such great risk …” — Peterson to military commanders.

Read sure to read the rest of the article to hear KBR’s side of the story (i.e.: these internal emails don’t tell the entire story) and leave us a comment on what you think about the merits of the case.

Posted in Military, News Analysis, Updates.

Tagged with , , , , , .


Some quick tips for using LinkedIn for building your legal network

I recently came across this short article by legal marketing expert Larry Bodine about how attorneys and law firms’ marketing departments can effectively utilize the LinkedIn web service to market their practice.

Some advice on using the professional networking tool for your firm’s business development include:

- If you want an introduction to make a sales call, inquire about job opportunities or make partner connections with another company, this is the way to do it. LinkedIn gives you instant credibility. Many executives use it and they realize it is a great networking tool. Remember in business development, it is not what you know but whom you know.

- To send a message to your connections, click on the Answers link at the top. Disregard the caption that says “ask a question,” and instead make a statement, tell some good news or send an announcement to your connections. Click on the Next button until you get to the “Share your question with your connections” box. You can send a message to up to 200 contacts.

- You can ask others in your network, former employers, clients, business colleagues, etc. to give you a recommendation. These show on your profile. Again these can provide you with a lot of credibility.

Do you or another personal injury attorney use LinkedIn for professional networking or business development? Have the results been positive, and if so, what is the best way to measure its Return-On-Investment relative to alternative marketing strategies (either online, or in the real world)?

Posted in Updates.


AMA’s own research contradicts myths about litigation costs

Despite public misconceptions, the supposedly rising costs associated with medical malpractice – which, in turn leading to higher insurance premiums – actually isn’t forcing doctors to quit their jobs or relocate their practices to different states.

This myth and other claims that litigation costs will destroy the health care industry that are repeated ad-nauseum by health care and insurance industry lobbyists simply aren’t supported by the data, the validity of which isn’t even contested by either side in the debate.

In fact, the data contradicts these red herrings.

Citing the findings of a GAO study (link to .pdf) which in turn analyzes the AMA’s own statistical data, AAJ notes that:

“Many of the reported provider actions taken in response to malpractice pressures were not substantiated or did not widely affect access to health care … some reports of physicians relocating to other states, retiring, or closing practices were not accurate or involved relatively few physicians.”i In fact, data from the AMA shows that physician numbers have been increasing across the board for many years.

The AAJ goes on to detail what is actually going on:

The number of doctors is increasing. The total number of physicians in the U.S. rose to yet another record high in 2007, the most recent year for which data is available. There were 941,304 physicians in the U.S. in 2007, nearly 20,000 more than the year before.

The number of doctors is increasing faster than population growth. The increase in physicians outpaced the increase in population once again. The number of physicians per 100,000 population is at an all-time high of 307. The increase of physician numbers compared to population growth has climbed steadily for decades. There are now twice as many physicians per 100,000 population as there were when the AMA began tracking figures in the 1960s.

The number of physicians is increasing across the states. Despite the cries of physicians fleeing multiple states, the number of physicians increased in every state in 2007. In addition, the increase in physicians either matched or outpaced population growth in every state over the last five years.

The ratio of doctors to population is higher in states without caps; the number of physicians per 100,000 population is 13% higher in those states that do not have caps

These facts on the actual economic impact medical malpractice litigation is having on doctors’ job security, check out AAJ’s excellent online resource on the subject here. And for some quick facts, download their comprehensive primer.

As the national debate on the future of health care and health insurance continues to boil over, it’s more important to know the actual facts instead of relying on the soundbites you hear from the media and the so-called “expert” punditry. Do your own fact-checking instead.

Update: Case in point, make sure to read this article from Bloomberg News reports on exactly the kind of lobbyist-induced misinformation that is in play.

Posted in Discussion, Industry Trends, Studies.

Tagged with , , , , .


Twitter Weekly Updates (10/15/09)

  • Must-Read: Hearst Newspapers’ report on the surprisingly high # of deaths in US due to preventable med. mistakes: http://bit.ly/RnXWL #

Powered by Twitter Tools

Posted in Twitter.


Is the healthcare debate overlooking the impact of medical errors?

This article from the Friday edition of the Connecticut Post raises an extremely important point that has unfortunately managed to slide under the radar in the ongoing debate over health care and insurance reform policy.

Here is the key clip:

The entire issue of medical errors is avoided in the health care bills.   While some would rather focus on limiting the legal rights of injured patients, over 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors with countless more injured. Tort law changes would only save 0.5% of all health care costs, and leave injured patients with practically no legal recourse. But reducing medical errors means healthier patients and lower costs.

Be sure to read the entire story, which links to this investigative report on the number of deaths that occur as a result of medical malpractice and negligent care, by Hearst Newspapers, here.

Posted in Discussion, Legislation, Opinion, Studies, Updates.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .


Still searching for “elusive” consensus on Health Insurance Reform

It’s certainly hasn’t taken even casual political observers by surprise, but it bears noting that the GOP is pulling out all of the stops in order to derail the Obama Administrations, and the Democratic-controlled Congress’ efforts at providing some badly-needed reform to the healthcare sector. This article filed by McClatchy’s does a good job of summarizing just how brazen and counter-productive their campaign to stonewall any progress really is.

Despite the Democratic Party recently receiving powerful mandates from the American public – with the party regaining control of both chambers of Congress in 2006 and Obama’s blowout victory last November – there appears to be little chance of any practical bi-partisan support being reached in the near-term.

Of course, divisions in policy exist not just between the Republican and Democratic parties, but squabbles within the Democratic party itself also pose a roadblock to reform taking place. Conservative, or “Blue Dog” Democratic members of Congress are in some cases as firmly against the Administration’s agenda (as articulated in a Presidential Memorandum released this week) as much as they are unsatisfied by the plan offered last week by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT).

Hopefully, some sort of agreement will be able to be reached across the political spectrum as the American public, especially the 40 million of those currently without health insurance, are the biggest losers in the current impasse. However, it is equally important that the Democratic party doesn’t compromise on its core principles and ignore the powerful mandate for domestic policy reform the previous elections have entrusted them with.

Also, be sure to check out this statement on the Administration’s Medical Liability Memo released on Thursday by the American Association for Justice (previously ATLA)

Posted in Discussion, Legislation, News Analysis, Pharma, Updates.

Tagged with , , , , .