Criticism of Malpractice Suits is Undeserved

"THOUGHTFUL" and "well-reasoned" are words that come to mind after reading your recent editorial on curtailing malpractice litigation as part of the Clinton health-care reform proposals. (NLJ, June 7.)

The editorial, terse and to the point, recognizes the important social function such suits serve as a legitimate avenue for asserting patients' rights as well as a "marketplace disciplinary board on negligent or incompetent doctors." May it also be added that the fury of criticism leveled recently at malpractice litigation is largely undeserved and unsubstantiated.

A recent, highly touted Harvard medical practice study indicates that about 155,000 people die in hospitals each year as a result of preventable medical accidents such as drug overdoses and infected wounds. Yet it is estimated that only one out of every eight injured patients ever files a lawsuit, and one out of every 16 ever receives compensation from a jury or an out-of-court settlement.

Doctors themselves contend that such claims are indeed meritorious. A study conducted by doctors and published late last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that doctors' care was, in fact, substandard in most cases in which patients won payment for injuries. It is, then, disappointing to read that a state such as Illinois dropped to 31st from 13th in the nation in the monitoring and discipline of incompetent physicians.

It is also a fallacy that skyrocketing malpractice premiums caused the health-care crisis. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported that malpractice premiums accounted for less than 1 percent of the $838 billion this country spends each year on health care. Contrast that figure with doctors' incomes, accounting for 9 to 15 percent of what is spent annually on health care.

Premiums for many doctors, in fact, have been reduced in recent years. St. Paul Fire and Marine, one of the nation's largest malpractice insurers, cut premiums by 16 percent in 1989 and another 6 percent in 1990.

It should be noted that in many states, adequate tort-reform measures already protect against frivolous suits. Illinois, for instance, requires a doctor to sign an affidavit stating that a valid cause of action exists in order to file a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Tort reform is an issue filled with emotion and drama. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of Americans.

The sides have clearly been drawn. Big business, the medical profession, insurance companies and manufacturers running a well-oiled public relations campaign form the allies on the one side. The other side is a youth in a wheelchair robbed of a full life, a mother who witnesses the horror of her infant killed in a plane crash, a construction worker paralyzed by faulty machinery -- all of them struggling to receive enough to cover their medical bills and perhaps something for their pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and disfigurement.

It was heartening to see The National Law Journal take a stance that recognizes the realities as well as the human side of the debate.