Medical malpractice reform has recently been in the news. There is a movement in some places to have doctors and hospitals apologize for their mistakes and make a settlement offer. At first glance it is looks like such a program might improve patient safety and decrease the amount of time it takes to get a
medical malpractice settlement.

However, a system of apologizing and making offers for medical mistakes may have potential disadvantages for patients who have been hurt. The concern is that patients will view the doctor or hospital offer as the only offer and that they will accept the offer without a full understanding
of their legal rights.

A doctor or hospital that has not been negligent is not required to pay damages. However, if a preventable mistake occurred that resulted in physical harm then a patient may be entitled to compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost income, out of pocket expenses, pain,
suffering and other damages.

If doctors and hospitals settle for the full amount owed to a patient than a program of apology and offer may work well. If not, then patients may suffer further.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard the much anticipated health care reform case. At issue before the Court was whether the individual mandate that requires every American to have health insurance is constitutional and whether the entire law will be struck down if the individual mandate part of the law is deemed unconstitutional.

Questioning by the Court seems to call into question whether Congress has the authority to require every American to have health insurance or face a financial penalty. The Court seemed further divided as to whether the whole law must be found unconstitutional if the key provision of individual insurance is found unconstitutional.

This case is being closely watched by many around the country and a decision is widely expected before the Court finishes its current session in June 2012.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would change the health
reform law and limit medical malpractice recoveries. Specifically, the bill which passed the house in a 223-181 vote would:

• Eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory
  Board.
• Eliminate the findings and purpose of the HEALTH
  Act of 2011.
• Extend liability coverage to on call and emergency
  room doctors.
• Apply antitrust laws to the health insurance
  industry.
• Grant civil liability protection to health
  professionals who volunteer at federally declared disaster areas.
• Limit the recovery of non-economic damages (such
  as pain and suffering) in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 and limit
  attorney contingency fees to a certain percentage.

This bill is not expected to pass the United States Senate and is unlikely to become law.

Do you think it should? Do you agree with the majority of the House or the expected consensus of the Senate? Please leave a comment and let us know.

Earlier this month the board of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority announced that it planned to fight a provision in Governor Corbett’s budget that would cause the Patient Safety Authority to become part of the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The Patient Safety Authority has expressed concerns that its autonomy and independence would be at risk if it
were to merge with the Department of Health and that patient safety could suffer.

Governor Corbett has said that moving the Patient Safety Authority to the Department of Health would help streamline government. The Governor has also proposed that the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council be moved to the Department of Health.

What do you think about such moves? Do they help streamline government or will they end up thwarting the efforts to improve patient safety in the Commonwealth?

There is a provision in the 2010 health reform law that will require private insurers to keep people under age 26 on their parents health insurance plan if they do not have other health
insurance benefits. How important is this provision?

Young adults, age 19 -29, make up about 17% of the adult population that does not qualify for Medicare and account for about 30% of adults who are uninsured. A new study found that young adults who are permitted to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans seek medical care more
regularly than those you who are no longer covered by their parents’ insurance. Seeking medical care without insurance was cost prohibitive for many young adults just starting out.

Is this a component of the health care law that you support or not? Please leave a comment and let us know your thoughts.