11/8/11 - ELECTION TODAY - Judicial Choices MATTER

11/7/11 - ELECTION DAY TODAY
Judicial Choices MATTER - Support Eakin, Stabile, Covey

((Editor's comments in blue italics. Please scroll to the end for more information, disclaimer, etc.))

1. Commentary
2. Politics PA
Judicial Candidates Spar over Campaign Contributions
http://www.politicspa.com/judicial-candidates-spar-over-campaign-contributions/29156/
3. PAMPAC E-NEWS
PAMPAC supports statewide judicial candidates....
4. PA GOP - Judge for Sale
http://www.pagop.org/2011/10/pa-gop-judge-for-sale-democrat-david-wecht-owned-by-philadelphia-trial-lawyers/
5. #Rx: The PAMPAC Prescription for a Fair Judiciary:
American Med News
Texas Tort reform advocates dispute critical report
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/31/prsc1031.htm
6. Fierce Healthcare.com
New payment models promote undertreatment, malpractice risks
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/new-payment-models-promote-undertreatment-malpractice-risks/2011-08-05
7. PennLive.com
Pennsylvania dentists may soon be required to purchase malpractice insurance
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/pennsylvania_dentists_may_soon.html


Commentary

Odd-number year elections aren't quite as "sexy" as the even number years - you won't get to choose a president, or a member of Congress, or even a member of the General Assembly tomorrow.

What you WILL get to choose are a wide range of local offices - which impact you DIRECTLY at the most fundamental levels - right in your own backyard.

And, possibly even more important, you'll get to choose JUDGES at the local and state levels.

Keeping in mind that fair judges at many levels impact the practice of medicine (and everything else, of course), judicial elections MATTER to medical professionals.

At the state level, I'd like to ask everyone to support three statewide candidates, who have been interviewed and vetted and are all supported by PAMPAC, the political arm of the PA Medical Society, for their comprehension of the issues that face the practice of medicine and their ability to be fair and impartial. Further, I've met and spoken at length with all three of these outstanding candidates and find them to be supportive of doctors and patients, intelligent, and extremely well qualified.

Those candidates are PA Supreme Court Justice Mike Eakin (this is a retention vote, so all you need to do is vote "yes"), Superior Court Candidate Vic Stabile, and Commonwealth Court Candidate Anne Covey.

You might think fairness and impartiality is a given with judicial candidates, but it isn't always the case - especially when those candidates are owned and operated by the Philadelphia trial lawyers, who just ponied up $300,000 to ensure that its choice for PA Superior Court beats OUR choice for Superior Court, Vic Stabile. Several articles about the trial lawyers' huge last-minute contribution to THEIR candidate follow.

Is $300,000 the going rate for a statewide judge these days, or is the leadership of the trial lawyers' PAC just feeling generous? Campaign finance reports indicate Stabile has raised a total of $198,000 - while his opponent, with the recent infusion of cash provided by the Philly trial lawyers, has raised $512,000. That infusion has made it possible for their guy to buy more TV and radio time.

Cash on hand shouldn't determine the winner of a judicial election, but it's hard to compete with a $300,000 bribe - I mean contribution! - from the group which has opposed every measure that would make Pennsylvania more physician-friendly.

If YOU would like to help Vic Stabile defeat the trial lawyers' candidate, it's not too late to make a contribution. If you're a PAMED member, you can contribute to PAMPAC's support of the PA judicial candidates online: www.pampac.org (log in required).

If you're not a member, you can still contribute by mailing your personal voluntary contribution to: PAMPAC - P.O. Box 8820 - Harrisburg, PA 17105-8820, or by calling PAMPAC at 800-228-7823.

Or, you can go directly to Vic Stabile's campaign website - but cannot contribute online. I'll bet they'd be happy to take contributions over the phone, though: http://www.stabileforjudge.com/.

I've attached a "prescription" form which you can pass out at the polls or in your offices, hospital or anywhere you like as a PDF.

On a more local level, a good friend to medicine is running for a seat on the bench in Lehigh County - if you live in Lehigh County, I'd like to ask you to vote for Doug Reichley for the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.

Doug Reichley has supported medical liability reform in PA since he first ran for the state legislature, and has been a consistent and powerful voice for reducing lawsuit abuse in PA. I have no doubt that Doug's years of experience as both an assistant district attorney and a state legislator will make him an outstanding judge. To learn more about Doug, check out his website: http://reichleyforjudge.com/.

Doug's opponent, who isn't even eligible to serve a full term as Lehigh County Judge due to PA's mandatory judicial retirement rules, has recently mounted a sleazy smear campaign against Doug, which is based on inaccuracies and a couple of bald faced lies. You can read the TRUTH here: http://reichleyforjudge.com/?category_name=refuting-opponents-incorrect-statements.

I don't have to tell you to GET OUT AND VOTE, right?

OK, just in case - GET OUT AND VOTE TODAY! And please remind your friends and family to do the same!

Best,
DBR

**************

http://www.politicspa.com/judicial-candidates-spar-over-campaign-contributions/29156/
Judicial Candidates Spar over Campaign Contributions
By Sari Heidenreich, Contributing Writer

Encouraging Pennsylvanians to get out and vote for Republican Commonwealth and Superior Court candidates next week, Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley highlighted the importance of these offices Tuesday saying the courts will likely ultimately decided policies surrounding the Marcellus Shale industry and education reform as well as redistricting.
“The decisions that are going to be made seven days from now are so vitally important to the quality of life for the people of this Commonwealth. It does matter who your local township supervisor is, it does matter who your mayor and council are,” Cawley said, “and let me tell you, it very much matters who puts on a black robe and sits on a bench.”

Commonwealth Court candidate Anne Covey and Superior Court candidate Vic Stabile also attended the press conference hosted by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. State party chairman, Rob Gleason said they anticipate only 25 percent of Pennsylvanians will vote in Tuesday’s statewide and municipal election.

The most recent campaign finance reports, released last Thursday, show that Stabile has raised $198,000 so far, according to the Associated Press. His opponent, Allegheny County Judge David Wecht has raised $512,000.

Democratic Commonwealth Court candidate Kathryn Boockvar has raised $352,000 while opponent Anne Covey had received nearly $343,000 according to the AP.

Stabile received $25,000 from the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association’s PAC Committee for a Better Tomorrow, according to the Associated Press. However, the group donated $300,000 his opponent, Allegheny County Judge David Wecht.

Stabile said, “I was very upset last week to see that my opponent received $300,000 from the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association [Committee For a Better Tomorrow]. That is the amount of money that most appellate candidates can hope to raise in these races, and they provided that to him in a single check. Obviously that has me at a disadvantage in terms of media … It does make it a noncompetitive race in many regards.”

The Committee for a Better Tomorrow actually donated the money to Wecht on two different occasions: $50,000 in September and $250,000 in October.

Wecht said he wanted to stay away from negative campaigning of partisan bickering but said, “I’m sure that my opponent [Stabile] would take contributions if he could get them.”

Wecht said the group’s contribution would not affect his ability to rule on cases if elected to the post, saying he would have “no idea which lawyer gave what” to the PAC “so there would be no possibility” he could consider the contributions of individual lawyers.

Earlier in the campaign, Wecht unsuccessfully lobbied Stabile to sign a pledge denouncing financial or advertising support from third party interest groups and 527s.

Stabile said he does not take issue with the fact that the trial lawyer’s PAC contributed to the race but the fact that they donated a disproportionate amount.

But Mark Nicastre, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said Stabile’s complaint is hypocritical.

“Republicans have been steady advocates for unlimited campaign contributions, secret campaign contributions and corporate contributions through shady organizations. They are only complaining now because there deep pocketed donors haven’t come through this year,” Nicastre said.

Mike Dineen, Wecht’s campaign manager, confirmed that the Committee for a Better Tomorrow’s $300,000 donation is the largest is the largest contribution they have received but noted that in previous judicial elections state parties had contributed similar amounts.

Recently, Wecht’s campaign has expanded its television ad buy, originally just in the Pittsburgh area, to the Altona/Johnstown and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton media markets.


**************


PAMPAC supports statewide judicial candidates who are fair minded and understand our issues—two keys to positively impact your practice.

In the 2011 statewide judicial elections, PAMPAC supports Anne Covey for Commonwealth Court and Victor Stabile for Superior Court in the contested races. Both candidates demonstrate a depth of knowledge and appreciation about the issues that impact our profession. Both had PAMPAC support in their primary elections.

Victor Stabile is the PAMPAC supported candidate for Superior Court. He is a Cumberland County attorney in private practice that has defended physician clients.

Anne Covey is the PAMPAC supported candidate for Commonwealth Court. She is an attorney in private practice in Bucks County with strong experience in state litigation.

PAMPAC also supports the retention election of Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, first elected with strong statewide physician support in 2001. Justice Eakin has continued to demonstrate from the bench that he is a pro-physician jurist.

The Nov. 8 statewide judicial elections offer an opportunity to elect candidates to the bench whom we believe are best for medicine.

Don't sit this election out. Vote November 8.

PAMPAC is the political arm of the Pennsylvania Medical Society. Membership in PAMPAC is voluntary and serves as the united voice of physicians in the political arena. PAMPAC contributes to candidates for state and, through AMPAC, federal office who support the priorities of the Pennsylvania Medical Society membership. The organization is headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and is directed by a board of members from the Pennsylvania Medical Society and the Pennsylvania Medical Society Alliance. PAMPAC eNEWS is prepared to keep readers informed about political and educational advocacy initiatives affecting Pennsylvania physicians. To learn more about PAMPAC log on to www.pamedsoc.org/pampac


**************

PA GOP: Judge For Sale – Democrat David Wecht Owned By Philadelphia Trial Lawyers
http://www.pagop.org/2011/10/pa-gop-judge-for-sale-democrat-david-wecht-owned-by-philadelphia-trial-lawyers/
October 31st, 2011
PA GOP: Judge For Sale – Democrat David Wecht Owned By Philadelphia Trial Lawyers

Wecht accepts $300,000 last-minute cash infusion from Philadelphia trial lawyers

HARRISBURG, PA – Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason released statement regarding David Wecht’s willingness to be bought with a $300,000 donation from the Committee for a Better Tomorrow PAC, a special interest group bankrolled by the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association:

“By taking $300,000 from Philadelphia trial lawyers, David Wecht has allowed a special interest group to bankroll his campaign as he attempts to buy his way onto Pennsylvania’s Superior Court. Based on his own previous comments, Wecht should recuse himself from any case that includes a trial attorney who has donated to the Better Tomorrow PAC.

“This is a clear example of justice for sale. Could you imagine appearing in David Wecht’s courtroom with a Philadelphia trial lawyer on the opposing side? Do you think you could get a fair trial? I don’t think so, and I think the majority of Pennsylvanians would agree.

“The plot thickens because during a judicial forum on October 14th, Wecht made a public pledge to not accept any contributions from any special interest groups during the course of his campaign. What’s worse: the fact that he broke his own pledge and accepted $300,000 from a special interest group, or the fact that he’s trying to buy his way onto Pennsylvania’s Superior Court?

“In addition, this issue has already been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy in writing the majority opinion stated that there is a ‘serious risk of actual bias’ if a judge does not recuse himself in a case where one or more parties have had a significant influence on that judge’s election. In this case, $300,000 would certainly qualify as a very significant influence and would significantly compromise David Wecht’s ability to adjudicate fairly.

“Since David Wecht likes pledges so much, I would challenge him to pledge today that he will recuse himself from any case that involves a Philadelphia trial lawyer who has contributed to the Committee for a Better Tomorrow PAC. To maintain the integrity of Pennsylvania’s judiciary, we are sounding the alarm on David Wecht. Voters should get to the polls on November 8th and to tell David Wecht that justice is not for sale, and support Vic Stabile,” Gleason said.

**************

#Rx: The PAMPAC Prescription for a Fair Judiciary:

The Pennsylvania Medical PAC, PAMPAC, supports these judicial candidates for election on November 8. A fair and balanced judiciary is essential for Pennsylvania and the patients whom we serve.

Supreme Court:
Retention of Justice Michael Eakin

Superior Court:
Election of Vic Stabile

Commonwealth Court:
Election of Anne Covey

Do Not Substitute!


**************

Texas tort reform advocates dispute critical report
A study says health care costs have risen since a damages cap and other measures were enacted. The state's physicians call the report misleading.
By Alicia Gallegos, amednews staff. Posted Oct 31, 2011.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/31/prsc1031.htm

Doctors and other advocates of Texas tort reforms are speaking out against an October report that says the measures have worsened health care in the state.

The report, issued by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, claims that the rate of new doctors in Texas has fallen since the state's $250,000 noneconomic damages cap was enacted in 2003. Medicare spending has grown since the reforms, and health insurance costs are higher than the national average, the report said.

((It's important to recall that Public Citizen is funded largely by trial lawyer money....))

"Despite the sales campaign to promote Texas as an exhibit of the merits of limiting doctors' liability for mistakes, the real world data tell the opposite story," said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "Health care in Texas has become more expensive and less accessible since the state's malpractice caps took effect."

The Texas Medical Assn. called the report misleading.

"First of all, we never promised the tort reform bill would lower the cost of medical care. We said it would increase access to medical care," said TMA President C. Bruce Malone, MD. "The hospitals are saving hundreds of millions a year in medical liability costs that can be applied directly to patient care."

The number of physicians in Texas has outpaced population growth by 84% since tort reforms were enacted.
Dr. Malone rebutted the report finding that the number of new doctors practicing in the state has decreased. The report based its figures on the rate of new physicians per capita. It claims that in the seven years before the cap took effect, the per capita number of doctors grew by 9.3% compared with an increase of 4.2% after the reforms.

The number of primary care physicians rose by 11.8% in the seven years leading to reforms but has remained flat since, the report said.

But comparing the rate of doctors against population growth is not an adequate assessment, Dr. Malone said. Texas has seen a rapid rise in residents in the last few years, he said.

Each year, about 4,000 doctors apply for a license in Texas, he said. In the past four years, license applications for physicians have increased 83% compared with the four years before tort reform, according to data from the TMA and the Texas Medical Board.

"We're keeping up with our huge population growth. The tort reform has allowed us to keep doctors' offices open that we might not have been able to do with the increasing liability" before reform, he said.

Data contradict report
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who signed the reforms into law, released data contradicting the Public Citizen report.

Since the reforms were enacted, 23,520 doctors have been licensed in Texas, and physician growth has outpaced population growth by 84%, according to the governor's office. In El Paso, physician growth has outpaced population growth by 177%, while in Houston the figure is 124%.

Medical liability premiums in Texas have declined by nearly 30% since state tort reforms were enacted.
The governor cited a national report from the Commonwealth Fund that found Texas' premiums for employer-sponsored coverage for individuals are lower than those in 34 states. The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that advocates better health care access and quality.

The cost of medical liability insurance has declined by nearly 30% since reforms were enacted, according to Perry's office.

"In Texas, comprehensive medical liability reform has improved access to medical care, particularly in underserved areas, restored balance to the Texas judicial system, keeping doctors in the exam room instead of the courtroom, and has removed a large threat to job creation and economic growth that had been created by excessive litigation," said Allison Castle, a spokeswoman for Perry.

Patients have benefited dramatically from reform measures, said Jon Opelt, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, a coalition of medical professionals who advocate improved access to care through lawsuit reforms. An increase in Texas doctors has led to 6.4 million more patient visits than would have occurred if reforms were not enacted, he said. Texas Alliance arrived at that figure by measuring the accelerated growth rate of physicians and factoring in the average number of patients seen annually by doctors, he said.

"What you have is more care available to more patients closer to home," he said.

Data from the governor's office show that since reforms, 23 rural counties have added at least one emergency physician and 18 counties have added their first emergency doctor. Fifteen rural counties have added either a cardiologist or cardiovascular surgeon, including 11 counties that added their first heart specialist.

In addition, the number of pediatric specialists and geriatricians has doubled in the past five years after showing no growth in two years preceding reforms, data show.

"I would venture to say there's not a state in the country that [has] seen the turnaround that we have seen," Opelt said.


**************

New payment models promote undertreatment, malpractice risks
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/new-payment-models-promote-undertreatment-malpractice-risks/2011-08-05
August 5, 2011 — 9:38am ET By Alicia Caramenico

((I believe this is what they call a "Catch 22."))

New coordinated care models, like accountable care organizations (ACOs), are being touted as ways to eliminate unnecessary tests and procedures and improve care. While these new arrangements may reduce costs, they also may increase malpractice risks for doctors, according to Medpage Today.

These new payment models are putting pressure on doctors to undertreat patients, note authors Lee J. Johnson and Dr. Frank J. Weinstock. By doing less costly tests and procedures, doctors can be sued for failure to diagnose or treat properly.

The increased the emphasis on cost reduction and pay-for-performance initiatives is driving doctors to avoid various tests and procedures for ACO patients. But despite the financial incentives to decrease care, doctors are still liable for their patients' care, note the authors.

The malpractice risks associated with undertreatment shed light on a May survey from the American College of Emergency Physicians, which found that more than 50 percent of roughly 1,800 ER doctors said the main reason they order the number of tests they do is fear of being sued.

During a time when nationwide healthcare costs continue to rise, there are ways doctors can avoid malpractice suits and unnecessary overtreatment. For example, doctors can implement informed refusal, giving patients a real option to refuse a proposed treatment. "If the doctor is completely honest about the chances of success and the side effects/risks involved, the patient may forego the treatment of his own accord. Costs will have been cut and the physician would not have increased his liability exposure," the authors write.

For more:
- read the Medpage article

**************

Pennsylvania dentists may soon be required to purchase malpractice insurance

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/pennsylvania_dentists_may_soon.html
Published: Monday, August 01, 2011, 7:11 PM Updated: Monday, August 01, 2011, 8:13 PM
BY JOHN MANGANARO, For The Patriot-News

Most dentists in Pennsylvania carry malpractice insurance, but currently, they aren’t required to do so.

That may change in the near future.

Sen. Pat Vance, R-Cumberland County, has sponsored a bill requiring dentists to purchase malpractice insurance. The state Senate unanimously approved the bill in June, and it is now in the state House of Representatives. The Legislature is in recess for the summer.

Vance introduced the bill after hearing reports of patient abuse in Reading, Berks County, and other areas of the state. Dentists who didn’t buy insurance could lose their license under the bill.

“Most responsible and group dentists already carry this kind of insurance anyway,” Vance said. “But unfortunately, the rogue dentists we really need to have this kind of coverage, to protect the consumer, are the ones who don’t.”

Dentists would be required to purchase liability insurance of $3 million annually. That amount of malpractice coverage would cost the average Pennsylvania dentist about $2,400 annually, according to Gil Davis, CEO of Pennsylvania Dental Association Insurance Services.

That average is driven up by rates in the southeastern part of the state. The average in Delaware and Montgomery counties is about $2,700. Philadelphia’s rate is closer to $4,500.

Local dentist Dr. Michael Verber called the bill “a good example of good government.”

“I already have that amount of coverage, and most dentists in the state do as well,” Verber said. “With this measure, the government will be able to increase the quality of health care without dramatically increasing the burden on doctors or patients.”

Dr. Craig Mathias, a Harrisburg orthodontist, said new malpractice insurance requirements would be “another unnecessary expense.”

“As an orthodontist, I’ve got a different level of liability, so we do already carry an adequate amount of insurance in my office,” Mathias said. “I’ve got about half of that right now.”

Mathias said picking up the rest “wouldn’t be a nail in the coffin. More like a tack to have to sit on.”

Davis said the average malpractice claim against dentists is only about $20,000. Davis didn’t have a number of claims typically filed in a year, but said there “is not a significant number.”

Dr. Dennis Charlton, president of the Pennsylvania Dental Association and a dentist in Mercer County, said his organization supports the legislation.

“Nearly all dentists in the commonwealth already have this level of malpractice insurance and this law will bring our malpractice requirements to the same level as other professionals in the state,” Charlton said.

Ronald Ruman, press secretary for the Department of State, said the agency “supports the general concept to require dentists to carry professional liability insurance.” The state department oversees the licensing of dentists.

Ruman added that, because some details of the measure are likely to be debated and changed in the House, the department “will wait to see the final version before taking a position on the legislation in its final form.”

**************

((From a good friend and crusader for doctors and patients - please consider participating in this webinar if you'd like to learn more about the Sorry Works! model of reducing medical liability abuse.))

Donna,

On November 15th, I'm doing a webinar on my Sorry Works! Talk....same talk as I've given to countless hospitals, insurers, and associations, except by webinar. Cheap but very efffective way to get message out. Here is the registration link: http://www.sorryworks.net/pdf/November-2011-Flyer.pdf.

I hope your folks can join us!

Sincerely,

- Doug

Doug Wojcieszak, Founder
Sorry Works!
PO Box 531
Glen Carbon, IL 62034

Website: http://www.sorryworks.net/

June 3, 2011
Doug Wojcieszak, Founder & Spokesperson
Contact phone/e-mail address: 618-559-8168; doug@sorryworks.net

FIVE-STAR: DOCTORS SHOWING COMPASSION
A good friend sent a recent PIAA newsletter with a news article on how doctors struggle with compassion - see directly below:

*********************

Doctors Often Struggle to Show Compassion While Dealing With Patients
Upon learning from his doctor that he had less than six months to live, Mike Venata said he wanted to reach across and slap the doctor. He said it wasn't the news that made him angry; it was the way it was delivered. The specialist had pulled out a piece of paper with his test results on it and said, "Well this isn't very good. This is terminal." He didn't talk to Mr. Venata, he talked to the piece of paper. "I have a guy sitting there reading a piece of paper telling me I am going to die and then walking out the door. That was not well executed," said Venata. To him the doctor's heartless presentation was as painful as the news. In research conducted at five medical schools, researchers studied two sets of faculty members on their skills at being compassionate as evaluated by their medical students and residents. One faculty group underwent a two- year program that combined experiential learning of skills such as role modeling along with reflective exploration of values through writing narratives and other activities. The other group had no intervention. The compassion-trained group was rated significantly more compassionate or humanist with their patients, demonstrating that compassionate can be taught. Another study of medical students showed that empathy scores declined among students at the end of the third year, when they had begun regular exposure to patients during clinical rotations-exactly when they need more empathy. In an editorial for the Washington Post, Manoj Jain, MD said, "The art of medicine is not just choosing the right medicine, but gauging the needs and providing reassurance and comfort to the patient." He said he believes that healthcare providers are genuinely compassionate and that is often what has steered them toward medicine in the first place. However, with the uncertainties in healthcare, increased workload and limited time, for many the joy in the work is lost, and this comes across in doctor-patient interactions. (Washington Post, 5/16)

*******************

You know, only half (or less) of medicine deals with biology, chemistry, math, etc....the other half is all about relationships, emotions, communication, etc...yet medical schools have traditionally focused on the science. It's a shame, but we have a lot of great technical people who have trouble emotionally connecting with the customers! This is article is exhibit A.

In our Five-Star courses, this is what we teach --- and the docs actually eat it up! Docs know they are often lacking in this area, but many don't know how to make it happen, especially in their pressure- packed, overbooked professional lives. So, we teach them simple things that don't consume time or cost money....the importance of hello, using someone's name, sitting down and looking a person in the eye, avoiding the temptation to interrupt and actually listen, body language, and so on. It's actually a small investment that a) can provide nice dividends for referrals and reimbursements and b_) avoid big headaches and losses, including litigation. There's so many little things docs can do that mean the world to patients and families.

This compassion stuff is big part of it. Taking a few minutes to talk through a difficult situation, appropriate contact such a holding a patient's hand or gently touching a shoulder, appropriately relating ("You know I lost my own mother a year ago..."), even crying with them, etc. I know this is foreign to some docs because you're taught to heal and save lives and admitting defeat is not part of your DNA, but, we all die some day. Patients and families know this....and we also know despite your best efforts you can't fix every problem, cure every disease, etc. So, sometimes showing us you care is enough....but you have to do it! And to do it, you need to be trained.

Below is a great story of a Cincinnati hospital that developed a compassion training program after a family complained about how they were notified about their daughter's death during surgery. See below.

To learn more about Five-Star training from the Sorry Works!-Stevens & Lee Team, give us a call at 618-559-8168 or e-mail doug@sorryworks.net.

Sincerely,

- Doug

Doug Wojcieszak, Founder
Sorry Works!
PO Box 531
Glen Carbon, IL 62034

**********
This LIABILITY & HEALTH REFORM UPDATE is a free service which I provide, as a volunteer, to help supply medical liability and health care reform news and information, legislative updates, and political insight to physicians, patients, liability reform, and quality health care advocates. No one pays me to do this.

I am not employed by any physician or health care reform advocacy or liability reform organization, political party, or candidate, although I volunteer for several. I am an advocate for quality health care, physicians and patients, a breast cancer survivor, physician's spouse, journalist, political noisemaker, mom, and freelance writer. I am not, nor will I ever claim to be, unbiased (I am....biased, I mean), unlike many in the mainstream media.

Most information in this newsletter is copied and pasted from other sources, and will always provide a link to the original source. Opinions and clarifications are my own, and do not reflect the official position of any physician or patient advocacy organization, tort reform, or health care reform group unless stated as such. My opinions are placed in double parentheses (("my opinion")), italicized, and appear in blue.
This Update is emailed to health professionals, physician and patient advocates, grassroots activists, and others interested in ensuring access to quality medical care.

Join our Google Group or Facebook Page or email LiabilityNEWS@aol.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line to ensure you get all issues ASAP. It also appears on the following BLOG (when I remember to post it, which isn't all the time): http://liabilityandhealthnewsupdate.blogspot.com.

If you'd prefer not to receive these periodic updates about health care issues in America, please hit "Reply" and put "Unsub health group" in the subject line and I'll remove your email address immediately.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO EVERY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL OR PATIENT YOU KNOW SO WE CAN GET THIS INFORMATION TO MORE OF THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.

Donna Baver Rovito, Editor, Liability and Health Reform Update

ROVSPA@aol.com

DonnaRovito@gmail.com

LiabilityNEWS@aol.com



Google Group/Blog: http://groups.google.com/group/liabilityandhealthnewsupdate

Blog: http://liabilityandhealthnewsupdate.blogspot.com

Liability&Health News Update Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=105855632790520

Peter F. Rovito, MD Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Allentown-PA/Dr-Peter-F-Rovito-MD-General-and-Bariatric-weight-loss-Surgery/129753870409168?v=wall

Lehigh Valley COALITION for Health Care Reform: www.meetup.com/lehigh-valley-coalition-for-health-care-reform Email: LVCoalition4HCR@aol.com

9/22/11 - Become a better advocate, tort reforms work, more

9/22/11 - Liability and Health Reform Update
Become a better advocate, tort reform works, more

((Editor's comments in blue italics. Please scroll to the end for more information, disclaimer, etc.))


CONTENTS:

1. Commentary
2. PAMPAC Campaign and Grassroots Advocacy Seminar
3. From Modern Physician
Harkin: Congress likely will tackle 'doc fix' in omnibus bill
http://www.modernphysician.com/article/20110920/MODERNPHYSICIAN/110929996/harkin-congress-likely-will-tackle-doc-fix-in-omnibus-bill
4. From Modern Physician
MedPAC proposes cuts to save $233 billion
http://www.modernphysician.com/article/20110921/MODERNPHYSICIAN/309219963?AllowView=VW8xUmo5Q21TcWJOb1gzb0tNN3RLZ0h0MWg5SVgra3NZRzROR3l0WWRMZmJYZjhBRWxYek9UYktwUGZUamg5b1g4WFFERmhzbHhwTHN6Yk9XcUU9?trk=mp_newsletter_FULL
5. From Allentown Morning Call
New law brings fairness to malpractice suits
http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-tort-reform-anderson--yv-20110913,0,403690.story
6. From Modern Medicine
Malpractice reform helps bottom line even if you don't get sued
http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/Modern+Medicine+News/Malpractice-reform-helps-bottom-line-even-if-you-d/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/738812?contextCategoryId=40169
7. From the Legal Intelligencer
Delco Jury Awards $3.8 Mil. to Woman Who Died From Sepsis
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202512430265&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The%20Legal%20Intelligencer&pt=TLI%20PM%20Legal%20Alert&cn=TLI%20_PM20110825&kw=Delco%20Jury%20Awards%20%243.8%20Mil.%20to%20Woman%20Who%20Died%20From%20Sepsis&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
8. From Legal Watchdog
The True Cost of Lawsuit Abuse
http://www.legalwatchdog.org/abuse_cost.asp
9. From The Patriot News
Pennsylvania dentists may soon be required to purchase malpractice insurance
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/pennsylvania_dentists_may_soon.html
10. From Insurance Journal
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2011/08/25/212358.htm
Texas Medical Liability Trust to Reduce Rates, Pay 18.5% Dividend
11. From Legal Watchdog
Gov. Perry Calls for Expanded Lawsuit Reform in Texas
http://www.legalwatchdog.org/
12. From American Medical News
Most doctors face lawsuits, but few lose them
Less than 2% of those sued make payments to plaintiffs, a study shows. Neurosurgeons are sued more often than any other specialists.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/08/29/prsa0829.htm
13. From Washington Examiner
Days numbered for trial lawyers getting outrageous paydays
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/days-numbered-trial-lawyers-getting-outrageous-paydays
14. From Roll Call
Gingrey: Lawsuits Handcuffing Health Care
Awards from Liability Suits Shouldn't Be Used as Investments for Hedge Funds
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Health-Care-2011_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-204316-1.html
15. From NCPA
Health Reform and Medical Malpractice Reform
http://www.aei.org/docLib/2011-04-Hyman-Sage.pdf
16. From Forbes
Malpractice Suits Plunge In Wake of Mississippi Tort Reforms
http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2011/07/28/malpractice-suits-plunge-in-wake-of-mississippi-tort-reforms/
17. Everything You Wanted to Know About "ObamaCare" (but didn't know who to ask)
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/health-care-reform---desales

*******

1. Commentary

NO one is a better advocate for quality health care than a physician.

Let me say it again - NO ONE, not a lobbyist, a lawyer, an executive director, an adorable child, or a cute puppy can affect a legislator's opinion or vote in the same way a physician can.

So....why do physicians sit back and let people that everyone knows get paid to advocate for them do all the work?

Sure, the professionals know what to say and how to say it. They've studied your issues, and they're wonderful - to an extent.

But physicians don't need to be told what to say about the issues that affect their ability to provide quality medical care - physicians LIVE it, and legislators know that. So a heartfelt story from a physician (or a physician's spouse!) about rising malpractice premiums making it impossible to hire more staff, or about government interference making it difficult to treat a patient's INDIVIDUAL needs, is far more effective than anything a paid lobbyist can say.

Don't get me wrong, we NEED our lobbyists to maintain a consistent presence and keep the groups that represent physicians in the forefront of legislators' minds, but for the REAL heavy lifting, doctors and other members of the "family of medicine" need to get involved - up close and personally involved.

Some of the people who are the BEST at helping physicians and their families maximize their inherent ability to impact legislative and political outcomes are joining forces this Saturday in Harrisburg to provide a unique training program for physicians and their family members. PAMPAC's Larry Light (whose quiet brilliance is scary sometimes) and AMPAC's Jim Wilson (who ran the outstanding AMPAC Campaign School I attended several years ago) will share their experience, insight, and techniques for successful advocacy.

This is a members-only benefit and I'm happy to say that I'll be there to soak up more of their collective wisdom. So if you're registered, make sure to be there - and if you're not and you'd like to be, it might not be too late (although I don't know that for sure.....)

I hope to see many of you there!

DBR


*******

2. PAMPAC Campaign and Grassroots Seminar

((This seminar is available only to PAMPAC and AMPAC members.))

PAMPAC and AMPAC would like to invite you to a Regional Campaign and Grassroots Seminar on September 24, 2011 from 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. The Seminar will be held at the PMS headquarters at 777 East Park Drive, Harrisburg, PA.

Increase your political effectiveness with sessions on:

Effective Advocacy Communication
Make an Impact on a Local Political Campaign
Running for Public Office – A Primer
Polish Your Political Skills
Please see the attached agenda for more information. This seminar is free to all current PAMPAC and AMPAC members. Continental breakfast and lunch will be provided.

Ask for the discounted PA Medical Society rate at-

Best Western Premier-800 East Park Dr. (717) 561-2800, (use code 3449)
Hampton Inn Harrisburg East-4230 Union Deposit Road- (717) 545-9595

To confirm your registration or for more information, please contact PAMPAC at pampac@pamedsoc.org or 717-558-7821.

If you are already registered for the session, you need do nothing else, and we look forward to seeing you in a few weeks!

Sincerely,
Jim Wilson. PhD

Manager, Political Education Programs

jim.wilson@ama-assn.org


PAMPAC POLITICAL SEMINAR
September 24, 2011
PA Medical Society Building
777 East Park Drive, Harrisburg, PA

8:30 AM Continental Breakfast

9:00 AM Effective Advocacy Communication
Meeting, Talking & Writing to Your Legislator
Message, Structure & Strategy
Stephanie Vance, Advocacy Associates

10:30 AM Break

10:45 Make an Impact on a Local Political Campaign
Fundraising, Get Out the Vote, Using your White
Coat & Office Effectively, Getting Your
Colleagues Involved
Vance & Jim Wilson, AMPAC

12:15 Lunch

12:45 Running for Public Office – A Primer
Should I Consider Running, How to get started,
State vs Federal
Larry Light, PAMPAC

1:45 PM Polish Your Political Skills
Role Play and Interactive
Jim Wilson

2:45 Closing Comments Jim Wilson

**********

3. From Modern Physician
Harkin: Congress likely will tackle 'doc fix' in omnibus bill
http://www.modernphysician.com/article/20110920/MODERNPHYSICIAN/110929996/harkin-congress-likely-will-tackle-doc-fix-in-omnibus-bill
By Rich Daly

Posted: September 20, 2011 - 6:15 pm ET

((Just what we need.....another massive bill no one will have time to read....does this make four or FIVE planned reductions of physician reimbursement floating around out there....? I've lost count.))

Congress will not prevent the looming 29.4% cut in Medicare payments to physicians until it approves a last-minute omnibus funding bill, according to a senior Senate Democrat.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee, told reporters Tuesday that a measure to prevent the scheduled cut to provider reimbursements from taking effect in January is one of several high-profile provisions he expects Congress to include in a catch-all spending bill it will pass in the final days of the year.

Physician groups have pushed for Congress to pass a "permanent fix" to the current sustainable growth-rate payment formula. Congress has delayed such action because of the estimated $344 billion, 10-year cost of switching to another system for setting payments, according to federal actuaries.

Another measure Harkin expects the omnibus to include is funding for the federal version of state health exchanges. Insurance exchanges in each state were authorized by the 2010 healthcare law to launch in 2014, with the federal government establishing exchanges in states that opted not to establish an exchange. However, published reports have asserted that the federal exchanges were unfunded by the law, and HHS officials have not clearly affirmed or denied those reports.

Harkin, who is the senior Senate Democrat overseeing healthcare funding, made it clear that the exchanges still require congressional appropriations.

"If the states won't do it, we go in and do it," Harkin said about the federal versions of state insurance exchanges.

**********

4. From Modern Physician
MedPAC proposes cuts to save $233 billion
http://www.modernphysician.com/article/20110921/MODERNPHYSICIAN/309219963?AllowView=VW8xUmo5Q21TcWJOb1gzb0tNN3RLZ0h0MWg5SVgra3NZRzROR3l0WWRMZmJYZjhBRWxYek9UYktwUGZUamg5b1g4WFFERmhzbHhwTHN6Yk9XcUU9?trk=mp_newsletter_FULL

By Rich Daly

Posted: September 21, 2011 - 1:00 pm ET

Congress could fund $233 billion of the 10-year cost of overhauling the Medicare physician payment program through a series of cuts to the seniors' health program, according to draft recommendations (PDF) posted online by the staff of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

The proposed Medicare cuts, on which the panel has not yet voted, came in addition to Medicare-only savings that could fund a "doc fix" that MedPAC discussed last week. Those ideas included a freeze on the reimbursement rate for primary-care services and cutting payments to specialists by 5.9% each year for three years.

Such steps aim to avoid a 29.4% cut in Medicare payments to providers that is scheduled to take effect in January under the current sustainable growth-rate formula.

The suggested cuts posted Tuesday by MedPAC staff included $75 billion in estimated 10-year savings from requiring drugmakers to provide Medicaid-type rebates for dual-eligible beneficiaries. Other savings include $23 billion from rebasing skilled-nursing facilities and $14 billion from both limiting the hospital update to 1% in 2012 and implementing documentation and coding improvements.

**********

5. From Allentown Morning Call
New law brings fairness to malpractice suits
http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-tort-reform-anderson--yv-20110913,0,403690.story
September 13, 2011

Earlier this summer, Gov. Corbett signed the Fair Share Act into law, bringing joint and several liability reform to Pennsylvania. Hallelujah!

I want to publicly extend the appreciation of all the men and women at St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network to Gov. Corbett and members of Pennsylvania's Senate and House who supported this landmark legislation. I have been a long-standing and vocal critic of Pennsylvania's contentious medical malpractice climate, and the passage of the Fair Share Act represents a significant step in a long journey toward substantive legal reform.

The Fair Share Act brings a degree of fairness to our legal system. It maintains a person's right to collect damages in a civil lawsuit while ensuring each defendant's level of financial responsibility is assessed in a fair and equitable manner, as determined by a judge or jury.

Previously, Pennsylvania law held every defendant found even 1 percent liable in a civil suit responsible for the entire verdict if other defendants could not pay their share. Under the Fair Share Act, percentage of fault equates to percentage of financial liability — basic common sense.

In signing the Fair Share Act, Gov. Corbett emphasized the legislation is "critical to improving the state's legal climate which has a direct impact on our economic climate." He noted the bill affects "the cost of goods and services, the cost of health care, and will encourage companies to move here, start here, grow here and stay here." I wholeheartedly agree.

Pennsylvania's economy — and that of our nation and many other countries across the world — continue to teeter on the brink of crisis.

The Fair Share Act levels the playing field for those involved in a civil lawsuit, including health care providers. It will further help to attract business and industry to Pennsylvania, creating jobs and providing health care benefits to more people.

It will help reduce exorbitant legal and malpractice insurance costs paid by Pennsylvania health care providers resulting from frivolous lawsuits filed by plaintiffs and their lawyers seeking to "win the lottery" in a litigious climate where degree of liability had no bearing on degree of financial responsibility in a civil lawsuit.

There is still more reform needed to bring additional fairness, common sense and accountability into our legal system. Requirements for medical experts writing the required certificate of merit as well as financial limits to pain and suffering awards must be enacted.

The Fair Share Act demonstrates the tremendous good that comes when our elected officials choose leadership over politics and fulfill their responsibility to facilitate positive change on behalf of all Pennsylvanians. St. Luke's thanks them for their efforts in enacting the Fair Share Act and urges them to continue to act and heal Pennsylvania's legal system.

Richard A. Anderson is president and CEO of St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network.
Copyright © 2011, The Morning Call

((Fair Share was a good first step - there are many more steps to take, and physician and family of medicine advocacy will be VITAL to the success of other measures. We can't "rest" simply we have a governor who supports medical liability reform.))

**********

6. From Modern Medicine
Malpractice reform helps bottom line even if you don't get sued
http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/Modern+Medicine+News/Malpractice-reform-helps-bottom-line-even-if-you-d/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/738812?contextCategoryId=40169

Publish date: Sep 7, 2011
By: Brenda L. Mooney

Does medical liability reform help the bottom lines of physicians who never get sued? Texas’ experience suggests that the answer is yes.

The board of governors of Texas Medical Liability Trust (TMLT), a physician-owned malpractice insurer, announced that it will reduce rates for the ninth consecutive year. For 2012, the average rate decrease will be 6.9%, varying by the specialty and location of the practice. In addition, the trust is paying out an 18.5% dividend for renewing policyholders, effective January 1, 2012. Combined, the rate reduction and dividend save TMLT policyholders nearly $35.8 million in 2012 premiums, according to the trust.

Insurance rates started on a downward trend when medical liability reform was passed in Texas in 2003, and with the 2012 cuts, physicians have saved $745.5 million in decreased premiums since that time, TMLT said. With the latest rate announcement, policyholders have seen their rates drop 56.7% since liability reform went into effect. ((Tort reform doesn't reduce premiums, though, just ask your friendly neighborhood trial lawyers' association....))

This is the seventh time TMLT has declared a policyholder dividend, which will represent about a $25.4 million benefit to the group’s policyholders in 2012.

"Physicians work within an environment of decreasing reimbursements and increasing operating costs. We are hopeful that these reductions and dividends will help physicians as they help patients," said Charles R. (Chip) Ott Jr., TMLT president and chief executive officer.

On its Web site, the Texas Medical Association (TMA) points out that all major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms, most by double-digits and by an average of 27%. That has meant $879 million in cumulative liability cost savings since January 2004, according to the association.

In addition, lawsuit filings in most Texas counties have dropped by half, TMA said.

Texas also has adopted a constitutional amendment to thwart challenges from trial lawyers, now operating under an organization called the American Association for Justice (AAJ). On its Web site opposing tort reform, AAJ argues that “Medical negligence lawsuits serve an important role in promoting public health and patient safety.” ((Actually, there's no quantifiable evidence of that.))

**********

7. From the Legal Intelligencer
Delco Jury Awards $3.8 Mil. to Woman Who Died From Sepsis
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202512430265&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The%20Legal%20Intelligencer&pt=TLI%20PM%20Legal%20Alert&cn=TLI%20_PM20110825&kw=Delco%20Jury%20Awards%20%243.8%20Mil.%20to%20Woman%20Who%20Died%20From%20Sepsis&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Gina Passarella
August 25, 2011

A Delaware County jury has awarded $3.8 million to the estate of a 52-year-old woman who died of sepsis at Riddle Memorial Hospital 14 hours after going to the emergency room with severe constipation.

The medical malpractice award is said to be one of the highest, if not the highest, in the county in several years, and it is one of less than a handful of cases that have gone in the plaintiff’s favor in five years.

According to Raynes McCarty attorney Roy DeCaro (pictured above), who represented Janice D. Heffner's husband, William, the court told him there were 75 medical malpractice cases that went to jury verdicts between 2006 and 2010 in Delaware County and 70 of them were defense verdicts. A call to the Delaware County court administrator to confirm these statistics was not immediately returned.

DeCaro said one judge told him the verdict was a good thing for the county because defendants are reluctant to even entertain settlements in the counties where defense verdicts are so prevalent.

"I think it's important that in a county, given the right case, the jurors will give fair value," DeCaro said. "But unfortunately it's the exception to the rule. But when you get verdicts like this, then the defense insurance companies have to pay attention and perhaps they will evaluate these cases in a fairer way than they are." ((That's an outrageous claim - perhaps he could offer some statistics to back it up? There's hard evidence that fewer malpractice cases are filed in Pennsylvania since the tort reforms of 2003 and the subsequent Supreme Court rule changes, but there is NO evidence available which indicates that there are fewer or lower settlements, since the PA Supreme Court doesn't track those.))

The 12-member jury in Heffner v. Riddle Memorial Hospital found 10-2 that Riddle Memorial Hospital house physician Dr. John A. Kotyo and attending physician Dr. Lawrence P. Wean were negligent in their care of Janice Heffner and that that negligence caused her death. The jury found Wean 40 percent negligent and found Kotyo 60 percent.

DeCaro said Kotyo was a direct employee of the hospital and put on a defense along with the hospital. While Wean put on his own defense, he was considered an agent of the hospital, placing Riddle Memorial on the hook for the $3.8 million. The jury awarded $3 million in Wrongful Death Act damages and $806,785 in Survival Act damages. DeCaro has filed for delay damages of $137,409.

DeCaro said plaintiffs often win the battle and lose the war when juries think they are teaching doctors a lesson by finding them negligent but then not finding that negligence was a cause of the plaintiff's harm. So he said he spent a lot of time in his closing talking about factual cause as it relates to increased risk. Showing that the conduct increased the risk of harm, which is required in Pennsylvania, is sometimes a hard concept for juries to understand, he said. ((I don't think that's hard to understand at all - if alleged negligence caused no HARM, then for what should a defendant be compensated?))

James C. Stroud of Rawle & Henderson represented Riddle Memorial and Kotyo. He said he was obviously disappointed in the verdict. He said he thought the case went really well for his client and he was surprised at the finding of liability. He was even more surprised, he said, at the size of the verdict for wrongful death, given Heffner had three adult children. Stroud said the verdict would have been high in Philadelphia, let alone Delaware County. He said his clients are considering their options for post-trial motions.

**********

8. From Legal Watchdog
The True Cost of Lawsuit Abuse
http://www.legalwatchdog.org/abuse_cost.asp

Austin, Texas -The U.S. legal system imposes on the nation a staggering cost of more than $865 billion annually through lawsuit abuse, according to recent study by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) of San Francisco, Calif.

The cost of lawsuit abuse is 27 times more than the federal government spends on homeland security, 30 times what the National Institutes of Health dedicates to finding cures for deadly diseases, and 13 times the amount the U.S. Department of Education spends to help educate America's children. ((I like these comparisons - they kind of remind me of the trial lawyers' "American doctors kill as many people as three jumbo jets crashing each day" rhetoric.))

The authors of "Jackpot Justice: The True cost of America's Tort System" calculated that the nation's tort system imposes a yearly "tort tax" of $9,827 for a family of four and raises health care spending in the United States by $124 billion.

Lost Jobs and Lost Retirement Saving More than 51,000 U.S. jobs have been lost due to asbestos-related bankruptcies alone. Employees at these bankrupted companies have lost $559 million in pension benefits.

Loss of Shareholder Wealth Lawsuits against American corporations generate an annual loss of $684 billion in shareholder value. Who are American shareholders? Not only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, but 50 percent of all United States shareholders are ordinary individuals.

**********

9. From The Patriot News
Pennsylvania dentists may soon be required to purchase malpractice insurance
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/pennsylvania_dentists_may_soon.html
Published: Monday, August 01, 2011, 7:11 PM Updated: Monday, August 01, 2011, 8:13 PM
BY JOHN MANGANARO, For The Patriot-News

Most dentists in Pennsylvania carry malpractice insurance, but currently, they aren’t required to do so.

That may change in the near future.

Sen. Pat Vance, R-Cumberland County, has sponsored a bill requiring dentists to purchase malpractice insurance. The state Senate unanimously approved the bill in June, and it is now in the state House of Representatives. The Legislature is in recess for the summer.

Vance introduced the bill after hearing reports of patient abuse in Reading, Berks County, and other areas of the state. Dentists who didn’t buy insurance could lose their license under the bill.

“Most responsible and group dentists already carry this kind of insurance anyway,” Vance said. “But unfortunately, the rogue dentists we really need to have this kind of coverage, to protect the consumer, are the ones who don’t.”

Dentists would be required to purchase liability insurance of $3 million annually. That amount of malpractice coverage would cost the average Pennsylvania dentist about $2,400 annually, according to Gil Davis, CEO of Pennsylvania Dental Association Insurance Services. ((Well, at least until the personal injury lawyers start to mine the new source of income....))

That average is driven up by rates in the southeastern part of the state. The average in Delaware and Montgomery counties is about $2,700. Philadelphia’s rate is closer to $4,500.

Local dentist Dr. Michael Verber called the bill “a good example of good government.”

“I already have that amount of coverage, and most dentists in the state do as well,” Verber said. “With this measure, the government will be able to increase the quality of health care without dramatically increasing the burden on doctors or patients.”

Dr. Craig Mathias, a Harrisburg orthodontist, said new malpractice insurance requirements would be “another unnecessary expense.”

“As an orthodontist, I’ve got a different level of liability, so we do already carry an adequate amount of insurance in my office,” Mathias said. “I’ve got about half of that right now.”

Mathias said picking up the rest “wouldn’t be a nail in the coffin. More like a tack to have to sit on.”

Davis said the average malpractice claim against dentists is only about $20,000. Davis didn’t have a number of claims typically filed in a year, but said there “is not a significant number.”

Dr. Dennis Charlton, president of the Pennsylvania Dental Association and a dentist in Mercer County, said his organization supports the legislation.

“Nearly all dentists in the commonwealth already have this level of malpractice insurance and this law will bring our malpractice requirements to the same level as other professionals in the state,” Charlton said.

Ronald Ruman, press secretary for the Department of State, said the agency “supports the general concept to require dentists to carry professional liability insurance.” The state department oversees the licensing of dentists.

Ruman added that, because some details of the measure are likely to be debated and changed in the House, the department “will wait to see the final version before taking a position on the legislation in its final form.”


**********

10. From Insurance Journal
Texas Medical Liability Trust to Reduce Rates, Pay 18.5% Dividend
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2011/08/25/212358.htm
August 25, 2011

Texas Medical Liability Trust announced a rate reduction for TMLT policyholders and an 18.5 percent dividend for renewing policyholders, effective Jan.1, 2012.

The average rate decrease will be 6.9 percent, but will vary by specialty and the geographic location of medical practice. The combined rate reduction and dividend will save TMLT policyholders nearly $35.8 million in 2012 premium

TMLT has reduced rates for Texas physicians for nine consecutive years since the passage of medical liability reform by the Texas legislature in 2003, the company said. The 2012 rate reduction saves TMLT policyholders about $10.4 million.

This is the seventh time TMLT has declared a policyholder dividend. This will amount to approximately $25.4 million in 2012 premium savings for TMLT physicians.

Since the passage of medical liability reform, TMLT insured physicians will have saved $745.5 million in decreased premiums, once this latest round of rate cuts and dividends is implemented.

In 2011, TMLT policyholders saw their premiums reduced 54.4 percent from 2003 rates. In 2012, this percentage is projected to increase to 56.7percent.

Source: TMLT

**********

11. From Legal Watchdog
Gov. Perry Calls for Expanded Lawsuit Reform in Texas
http://www.legalwatchdog.org/

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today urged lawmakers to maintain the principles that have helped Texas' economy lead the nation, and to build upon previous improvements to the state's legal system by further expanding lawsuit reform. The governor gave the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's (TPPF) 9th Annual Policy Orientation for the Texas Legislature.

"As the ripple effects of the recession began to reach Texas, our sound policies helped us rebound quicker than other states and are now helping us lead the way to recovery," Gov. Perry said. "We must work together this session to strengthen the basic economic building blocks that have drawn new employers and jobs to our state to ensure Texas remains the best state to do business and raise a family."

Balancing the budget while strengthening Texas' job-friendly climate¬ – based on low taxes, predictable regulations, a fair legal system and world-class workforce – is a top priority for the governor and vital to the future of the state.

To keep Texas' legal system accountable, transparent and efficient, and maintain Texas' competitive economic position, the governor noted the need to expand lawsuit reform in Texas by:

Creating an early dismissal option for frivolous lawsuits ((That's an excellent idea. The longer these cases linger, the more they cost.))

Ensuring victims of frivolous lawsuits do not bear the financial burden of defending themselves through the creation of a "loser pays" system

Ensuring new laws cannot create causes of action unless expressly established by the Legislature
Setting up expedited trials and limited discovery for lawsuits with claims between $10,000 and $100,000

Gov. Perry also reiterated his call for legislators to use available state revenue and thoroughly review all agencies and programs in order to balance the budget without raising taxes. To ensure state agencies continue to use taxpayer dollars prudently, the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker have already directed state agencies to identify savings of 5 percent in the 2010-2011 biennium, an additional 2.5 percent for the 2011 fiscal year, and 10 percent for the 2012-2013 biennium.

**********

12. From American Medical News
Most doctors face lawsuits, but few lose them
Less than 2% of those sued make payments to plaintiffs, a study shows. Neurosurgeons are sued more often than any other specialists.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/08/29/prsa0829.htm
By Alicia Gallegos, amednews staff. Posted Aug. 29, 2011.

Most physicians will be sued at least once during their career, but the majority of cases will end in their favor.

The frequency of medical liability claims varies by specialty, with neurosurgeons sued more often than other physicians, said a study in the Aug. 18 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers estimated that by age 65, 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties will have experienced a lawsuit, compared with 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties.

"The purpose of this study was to really try to understand what are the individual malpractice risks that physicians in each specialty face," said lead study author Anupam B. Jena, MD, an internist in the Dept. of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and a clinical fellow at Harvard Medical School in Boston. "Naturally, physicians in each specialty believe they are getting sued more often than average."

Dr. Jena and his colleagues analyzed claims data on about 41,000 physicians between 1991 and 2005 from an unidentified national medical liability insurer. The study found that each year, an average 7.4% of physicians experienced a medical liability claim. But among those doctors, only 1.6% made payments to plaintiffs.

Among neurosurgeons, each year 19.1% were sued. About one in five thoracic-cardiovascular surgeons faced a claim, followed by 15.3% of general surgeons. Only 2.6% of psychiatrists were sued in a given year, the least of all specialties.

About 8% of internists and 5.2% of family physicians faced lawsuits.

Physicians sued more often do not necessarily pay higher awards to plaintiffs, the study found. Dermatologists paid an average award or settlement of $117,832, the least of any specialty. Pediatricians paid the most, an average of $520,923 per payment.

Study supports previous research

The findings are not surprising, said Brian Atchinson, president of the Physician Insurers Assn. of America.

"This study validates what PIAA has reported for decades -- that the vast majority of claims and suits brought against health care providers have no merit," Atchinson said in an email. "Our figures show that 70% of the claims and suits brought against doctors do not result in payments to patients. Furthermore, for claims resolved at verdict, the defense prevails 80% of the time. Despite these facts, as a result of our flawed and inefficient medical liability system, health care providers continue to be subjected to unnecessary stress and time away from caring for patients, as the study noted."

An average of 7.4% of U.S. physicians are sued each year.

An analysis by PIAA found that the average cost of resolving a medical liability case in 2009 was $324,969, a rise of 13.9% from 2000.

The NEJM study results on frequency of lawsuits are similar to those of an American Medical Association survey released in 2010. The survey found more than 60% of physicians were sued by age 55.

The NEJM and AMA studies "paint a bleak picture of physicians' experiences with medical liability claims and bolsters the case for national and state level reform to rein in a broken legal system that invites abuse and excessive litigation," said AMA President Peter W. Carmel, MD. "Even though the vast majority of claims are dropped or decided in favor of physicians, the understandable fear of meritless lawsuits can profoundly influence which medical specialty physicians choose, where they practice and when they retire. This litigious climate hurts patients' access to health care at a time when we are also facing a shortage of physicians and other health professionals."

Authors of the NEJM study hope the piece will motivate physicians and others to discuss and implement more creative strategies to combat meritless claims, said co-study author Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Traditional tort reforms such as damages caps are merely "patching portholes in the Titanic," he said.

Researchers said there were other costs the NEJM study did not capture, including the toll on physicians' emotions and reputation during a lawsuit.

"Although most cases get resolved in favor of doctors, it's a long, torturous legal process," Chandra said. "It's very slow, and the doctor is sitting there, sweating the whole time."

Lawsuits by specialty

A study shows how often physicians by specialty are sued annually and how many end up making payments to plaintiffs who have sued them.

Percentage of physicians sued
Specialty Sued Making plaintiff payment
Neurosurgery 19.1% 3.1%
Thoracic-cardiovascular surgery 18.9% 3.8%
General surgery 15.3% 4.2%
Orthopedic surgery 14.2% 3.9%
Plastic surgery 12.7% 2.8%
Gastroenterology 11.6% 1.3%
Obstetrics-gynecology 11.0% 2.9%
Urology 10.5% 2.5%
Pulmonary medicine 9.3% 0.9%
Oncology 9.1% 1.9%
Cardiology 8.6% 1.0%
Gynecology 8.3% 3.2%
Neurology 7.8% 1.4%
Internal medicine 7.7% 1.3%
Emergency medicine 7.6 1.4%
Anesthesiology 7.3% 1.6%
Diagnostic radiology 7.2% 1.6%
Ophthalmology 6.7% 1.2%
Nephrology 6.0% 0.4%
Pathology 5.6% 1.3%
Dermatology 5.4% 1.2%
Family general practice 5.2% 1.0%
Pediatrics 3.1% 0.5%
Psychiatry 2.6% 0.5%
Other specialties 4.0% 0.7%
All physicians 7.4% 1.6%

Source: "Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty," The New England Journal of Medicine, Aug. 18 (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21848463)

Weblink
"Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty," The New England Journal of Medicine, Aug. 18 (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21848463)

"Medical Liability Claim Frequency: A 2007-2008 Snapshot of Physicians," AMA Policy Research Perspectives, August 2010 (www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/363/prp-201001-claim-freq.pdf)

Copyright 2011 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

**********

13. From Washington Examiner
Days numbered for trial lawyers getting outrageous paydays
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/days-numbered-trial-lawyers-getting-outrageous-paydays
By: David Freddoso Online Opinion Editor
08/23/11 8:05 PM

Here's a tip for you: Listening to really, really loud sounds over long periods of time can damage your hearing.

Perhaps you already knew that. But a few years back, a group of clever trial lawyers decided they could make some serious money by arguing in court that you are too stupid to know it yourself.

They filed 26 consumer fraud lawsuits in multiple states against Motorola and other manufacturers of Bluetooth headsets. They alleged that consumers were not warned sufficiently about the dangers, and that they "would not have purchased their Bluetooth headsets but for defendants' false advertising."

That led to a single class-action case in federal court, in which the plaintiffs sought refunds, restitution and punitive damages. And attorneys' fees, of course.

The case was pretty light on the merits -- in fact, Apple recently got a similar nuisance case thrown out of court over its iPod product line. But millions of people had purchased Bluetooth headsets, and so the potential for liability was high.

And these kinds of nuisance cases often cost a lot of money to defend. Most deep-pocketed defendants would rather spend a million dollars making a case like this one go away than spend millions more in litigation.

For the lawyers, this case was simple: File a lawsuit, then get a settlement agreement -- which they did. Under its terms, a hearing loss charity was to get $100,000. The lawyers were to get $800,000. And those who cranked up the volume full blast until they lost their hearing? They would basically get nothing. ((Look at that again - the lawyers were to get $800,000.))

But this week, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a damper on the business model of legal extortion by trial lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. It sent this particular class-action settlement back to the lower court for reconsideration. It was the court's first failure to rubber-stamp such a class-action settlement in eight years.

Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness had filed the objection to the settlement. "We have been saying all along that this is an abuse of the class-action process," Frank told me. He said that the case could be a milestone in his fight to prevent such abuses.

"A defendant is willing to throw a million dollars at a case to make it go away, because it's often more expensive to defend it," Frank said. "And the attorneys are OK with settling for that million dollars, if they get the million dollars. But if most of the money has to go to their clients, they won't bring the crummy cases in the first place. They'll only bring meritorious cases."

Frank has become the proverbial fly in the trial lawyers' ointment, objecting again and again to bogus nuisance settlements that make up the bread and butter for some. In January, his objection helped convince a court to throw out a settlement between Classmates.com (the online social site with the annoying popup ads) and some users who felt they had been duped into signing up.

In that case -- whose merits appear much stronger than the Bluetooth case -- the lawyers had negotiated $117,000 for the aggrieved class, and a million-plus-dollar fee for themselves.

Frank's organization, a nonprofit 501(c)(3), is currently fighting settlements that are overly generous to trial lawyers in cases against Kellogg, Volkswagen and Toys "R" Us, among others.

He has also filed an objection to a settlement in an antitrust case against Sirius XM radio, which provided nothing -- zero -- for the plaintiffs, and $13 million (or 100 percent of the monetary settlement) for the attorneys.

The message for certain trial lawyers is that their days of self-serving deals and sponging off deep-pocketed defendants are numbered.

((Ted Frank is one of my heroes.....!))

David Freddoso is The Examiner's online opinion editor. He can be reached at dfreddoso@washingtonexaminer.com.

**********

14. From Roll Call
Gingrey: Lawsuits Handcuffing Health Care
Awards from Liability Suits Shouldn't Be Used as Investments for Hedge Funds
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Health-Care-2011_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-204316-1.html
By Rep. Phil Gingrey
Special to Roll Call
March 25, 2011, 10:23 a.m.

It is a well-known fact that a strong doctor-patient relationship is an important part of an effective health care system.

What is less known, however, is that this relationship is in serious peril because of increasing attempts by some trial attorneys and Wall Street to exploit medical malpractice cases in search of large profits.

In the past few years, hedge funds and investment firms have begun capitalizing on medical lawsuits in order to reap rewards that are actually intended for injured patients. Furthermore, many of these suits aren’t even based on legitimate claims and oftentimes it is the patient’s own attorney who is responsible for facilitating these deals.

This is an alarming and costly problem. The New York Times reported that in this year alone, the financing of these types of frivolous suits will cost nearly $1 billion, adding a large amount of wasteful spending to our already ailing health care system. Health care liability awards should not be used as an investment vehicle for law firms and hedge funds, but should be used to make the patient whole.

When the well-being of patients is no longer the first priority, the need for tort reform becomes more important than ever. Support for meaningful medical malpractice liability reform can be traced back 30 years, to when then-Gov. Jerry Brown (D) of California implemented tort reform laws to address this very problem. The results were significant. The state saw an improvement in the care of patients and their safety, more accessibility to care, growth in the industry and lower costs.

The need for reform is still being echoed today, but on a national level. Most recently, we heard President Barack Obama during his State of the Union address talk about the need to look at alternate ways to lower the cost of health care, including medical liability reform. What may have been traditionally thought of as a political issue is now clearly an initiative with widespread bipartisan support.

This support gives us the ability to answer the call for reform by implementing meaningful liability solutions on a much larger scale. To do so, I introduced H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act, along with my co-sponsors, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.). Our bill parallels the successful reforms in California and would ensure that injured patients can be made whole while creating substantial savings for our health care system.

And the savings that these reforms would bring about are quite significant. Meaningful medical liability reform has the potential to dramatically reduce the cost of health care by as much as $200 billion annually. Currently, this money is being lost to the practice of defensive medicine, frivolous lawsuits and excessive fees instead of being used to compensate injured patients. In a time when each and every dollar that we spend counts, these savings could make a huge difference in the quality of health care provided.

This cost ultimately increases insurance rates and creates a less desirable environment for physicians to practice medicine. In fact, the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance has been the main reason cited by medical students for deciding not to practice, which is a contributing factor to our national physician shortage.

Lack of reform not only increases the costs of health care significantly, but it directly strains the doctor-patient relationship. When medical liability cases becomes less about the quality of care and more about outside parties earning dividends on patient injury awards, the need for reform is clear. After all, it should be easier to see your doctor than to sue your doctor.

Maintaining the status quo in our health care system is no longer acceptable. Big, expensive and intrusive bills are not the kinds of solutions the American people want. But by supporting reforms such as the HEALTH Act, we can enact cost-cutting and meaningful measures that truly turn our focus back to the care and protection of patients nationwide.

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Health. He co-chairs the GOP Doctors Caucus.


**********

15. From NCPA
Health Reform and Medical Malpractice Reform
http://www.aei.org/docLib/2011-04-Hyman-Sage.pdf

The final version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) included only two minor provisions related to medical malpractice. Section 6801 encourages states "to develop and test alternatives to the civil litigation system," say David A. Hyman, University of Illinois, and William M. Sage, University of Texas at Austin.

Section 10607 authorizes $50 million over a five-year period to support demonstration grants to states for the "development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation for resolving disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations."

To qualify for the new funding, a state must demonstrate that its proposal:

Makes the medical liability system more reliable and efficient.
Encourages the disclosure of health care errors and enhances patient safety.
Improves access to liability insurance.
Fully informs patients about the differences in the alternative and current tort litigation.
Provides patients the ability to opt out of or voluntarily withdraw from participating in the alternative at any time.
Does not conflict with state law and will not limit or curtail a patient's existing legal rights.

Why did the PPACA not emphasize malpractice reform as a more important component of health care reform? Should the PPACA have done more to change the rules of malpractice liability? What kinds of changes might make sense? The PPACA's omission of malpractice reform was a missed opportunity to secure the support of physicians for payment reform and delivery-system transformation. The real issue is what we want our health care system and our malpractice system to do when working together.

Modifications to both should be undertaken with that question in mind, say Hyman and Sage.

((Dr. Sage is fair-minded and intelligent, as he demonstrated during Pennsylvania's medical liability crisis.))

Source: David A. Hyman and William M. Sage, "Do Health Reform and Malpractice Reform Fit Together?" The American Enterprise Institute, April 1, 2011.

For text:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/2011-04-Hyman-Sage.pdf

For more on Health Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16


**********

16. From Forbes
Malpractice Suits Plunge In Wake of Mississippi Tort Reforms
http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2011/07/28/malpractice-suits-plunge-in-wake-of-mississippi-tort-reforms/
Jul. 28 2011 - 2:01 pm
By DANIEL FISHER

A new study of medical malpractice litigation in Mississippi suggests caps on pain and suffering awards and other reforms had a dramatic impact on lawsuits against doctors in that state.
The study in the current issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology is by Mark Behrens of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, the defense firm of choice for tobacco companies and manufacturers with serious toxic liability issues. No matter. Behren simply looks at the number of lawsuits filed against doctors insured by the Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi, the state’s largest med-mal insurer, and comes up with convincing evidence that once the legislature made it harder to sue and win big bucks, lawyers responded by filing fewer suits.

The charts make for interesting viewing. In the years before Mississippi began seriously discussing med-mal tort reform lawsuits against MACM-insured physicians rose at a steady rate of about 8.5% a year to around 250. They jumped to 355 in 2001 and then surged to 630 in 2002, after legislators passed a law capping non-economic damages at $500,000 for suits filed after Jan. 1, 2003. Who knew doctors could commit more malpractice simply because the legislature changed the rules? (The MACM said by the end of 2006 that it was “disposing of most of those claims with little or no expense,” casting doubt on quality of that last-minute lawyering.) ((I LOVE that this reporter pointed out the surge in claims JUST PRIOR to reforms going into effect - we had the same thing happen here in PA in 2002, and the numbers generated by the get-in-under-the-old-rules surge of filings has been used to make it look like the reforms had far more effect than they did ever since.))

The once-friendly legislators punished trial lawyers the following year by eliminating any increases in the cap on pain and suffering, outlawing forum shopping by forcing plaintiffs to sue in the county where they were allegedly injured, and other tweaks that made it harder to drag tangential players into lawsuits. Lawsuits fell to 132 in 2003, their lowest level since 1989, and since have averaged about 150 a year, compared with 207 a year in the decade before 2002.

The steady increase in lawsuits before tort reform exceeded the rise in MACM physician rolls, which was about 3.5% a year. The number of insured jumped 14% after reform passed to 2,500 and has since increased to 2,721. So, as Behrens points out, the reduction in lawsuits filed can’t have anything to do with the number of physicians practicing. If tort reform doesn’t explain the lower number of suits, why else are more doctors drawing fewer claims of malpractice? Medicine didn’t suddenly get safer in Mississippi in 2003. ((Which only goes to prove that the number of lawsuits filed has far more to do with money than it does with safety.))

Behrens also talks about declining med-mal insurance rates, although as Tom Baker of the University of Pennsylvania has demonstrated convincingly, med-mal rates tend to rise and fall to their own rhythm. Still, the numbers are impressive. Premiums rose more than 10% each year between 2000 and 2004, with a 45% increase in 2003. Since 2006 they’ve fallen 5% to 20% a year.

The Mississippi experience offers a few important lessons. First, despite what some lawyers (and state Supreme Courts) say, the legislature does have the power to dictate the terms of civil litigation. The argument that medical malpractice litigation makes medicine safer is an idea in search of supporting evidence. ((YES!)) And lawyers, like all business people, respond to economic incentives. The sudden spike in apparent malpractice followed by a major decrease says everything about economics and very little about how many people were actually injured by malpractice. ((Again, YES!))

**********

17. Everything You Wanted to Know About "ObamaCare"
(but didn't know who to ask)
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/health-care-reform---desales

Video of Lehigh Valley COALITION for Health Care Reform's Constitution Day Educational Workshop - Everything You Wanted to Know About "ObamaCare" (but didn't know who to ask) at DeSales University on Sept. 17th.

Part 1
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17332009 - 1:59.25
Introduction - PPACA Nuts and Bolts, Implementation Timeline - Donna Baver Rovito - PA Rep. Stephen Bloom - Dr. Elena Farrell (D4PC) - Dr. Nick Pandelides (D4PC) - Samuel Denisco (PA Chamber) - Rep. John Shadegg - Dr. Richard Armstrong (D4PC)

Part 2
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17334048 - 6:27
Dr. Richard Armstrong (D4PC) (cont) -

Part 3
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17334228 - 1:01.17
Terrence O'Connor (HB 42) - William Taylor Reil (Nullification) - John Morningstar (Health Care Compacts) - John Brinson (Individual Reforms needed) - Dr. Alieta Eck (AAPS Pres-Elect)

Part 4
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17335319 - :58.37
Panel Discussion - Closing

For more information about the Coalition, go to www.meetup.com/lehigh-valley-coalition-for-health-care-reform

**********

This LIABILITY & HEALTH REFORM UPDATE is a free service which I provide, as a volunteer, to help supply medical liability and health care reform news and information, legislative updates, and political insight to physicians, patients, liability reform, and quality health care advocates. No one pays me to do this.

I am not employed by any physician or health care reform advocacy or liability reform organization, political party, or candidate, although I volunteer for several. I am an advocate for quality health care, physicians and patients, a breast cancer survivor, physician's spouse, journalist, political noisemaker, mom, and freelance writer. I am not, nor will I ever claim to be, unbiased (I am....biased, I mean), unlike many in the mainstream media.

Most information in this newsletter is copied and pasted from other sources, and will always provide a link to the original source. Opinions and clarifications are my own, and do not reflect the official position of any physician or patient advocacy organization, tort reform, or health care reform group unless stated as such. My opinions are placed in double parentheses (("my opinion")), italicized, and appear in blue.

This Update is emailed to health professionals, physician and patient advocates, grassroots activists, and others interested in ensuring access to quality medical care.

Join our Google Group or Facebook Page or email LiabilityNEWS@aol.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line to ensure you get all issues ASAP. It also appears on the following BLOG (when I remember to post it, which isn't all the time): http://liabilityandhealthnewsupdate.blogspot.com.

If you'd prefer not to receive these periodic updates about health care issues in America, please hit "Reply" and put "Unsub health group" in the subject line and I'll remove your email address immediately.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO EVERY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL OR PATIENT YOU KNOW SO WE CAN GET THIS INFORMATION TO MORE OF THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.

Donna Baver Rovito, Editor, Liability and Health Reform Update

ROVSPA@aol.com
DonnaRovito@gmail.com
LiabilityNEWS@aol.com


Google Group/Blog: http://groups.google.com/group/liabilityandhealthnewsupdate
Blog: http://liabilityandhealthnewsupdate.blogspot.com
Liability&Health News Update Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=105855632790520
Peter F. Rovito, MD Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Allentown-PA/Dr-Peter-F-Rovito-MD-General-and-Bariatric-weight-loss-Surgery/129753870409168?v=wall
Lehigh Valley COALITION for Health Care Reform: www.meetup.com/lehigh-valley-coalition-for-health-care-reform Email: LVCoalition4HCR@aol.com

6/24/11 - Fair Share Act Passes PA Senate - Now Back to the House

6/24/11 - Liability and Health Reform Update
Fair Share Act Passes PA Senate
Now back to the House

((Editor's comments in blue italics. Please scroll to the end for more information, disclaimer, etc.))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editor's Comments:

MANY THANKS to everyone who called, wrote and emailed members of the PA Senate to support the Fair Share Act! Your advocacy made all the difference in the world!

Please watch for more comments further down in this newsletter....

And thanks again for all your help!

DBR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bill to limit lawsuit liability passes state Senate
GOP leaders expect it to move quickly through House to Corbett.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/pa-xgr--lawsuit-liability-20110621,0,7756316.story
by Mark Llevy

HARRISBURG — A top priority of Gov. Tom Corbett moved an important step closer to becoming law Tuesday as the state Senate passed a bill limiting the liability of defendants in some civil court cases for negligence after passionate debate that pitted the interests of business owners, hospitals and insurers against lawyers who represent victims.
Senators in the Republican-controlled chamber voted 32-18 to send the bill to the House, which handily passed a nearly identical bill in April and where leaders of the GOP majority expect to move it quickly to Corbett's desk. All but one Republican voted for it, and all but three Democrats opposed it.
The vote came after 90 minutes of floor debate Monday and Tuesday over what impact the bill would have on the state's economy and what would happen to people who are wronged and seek justice through the courts.
Current law holds all guilty defendants potentially liable for 100 percent of damages if their co-defendants cannot pay for the negligence resulting in death or injury to a person or property.
But supporters of the bill say the law hurts Pennsylvania's business climate because it allows a victim's lawyers to drag a deep-pocketed company with little connection to the negligent act into the case because of its ability to pay. Opponents of the bill, however, say changing the law will hurt victims of negligent acts and their families who seek justice in the courts after they are maimed and unable to work, or killed.
"This is a bill that's been identified by every business organization that I'm aware of in the state as a No. 1 priority to help them create jobs in this commonwealth," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre. "This is a bill that the health care organizations have been strongly supportive of to help them keep their viability in their communities."
Democrats accused Republicans of driving a larger agenda to take away rights.
"It hurts people," said Sen. Larry Farnese, D-Philadelphia. "It doesn't create an economic boom. It doesn't create jobs. It puts people in a position where they can be hurt, where their quality of life can be destroyed and where government does nothing to make their lives better."
On Monday, senators voted 28-22 to approve a Corman-sponsored amendment to an underlying bill written by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, who, like trial lawyers and labor unions, opposed the bill that came over from the House.
Under the bill, defendants found to be less than 60 percent at fault wouldn't have to pay more than their share of the damages, except for awards in circumstances including intentional misrepresentation, an intentional act, an environmental crime or a liquor law violation.
Corman's amendment eliminated two additional exceptions for cases where children are involved and where the victim lost wages because of injury or death.
Hospitals, insurers and business groups lobbied against Greenleaf's bill and said it carried too many exceptions to fix the inherent unfairness in the law.
"If you think the civil justice system is a welfare program where everybody gets everything they're asking for, then vote against this bill," said Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin. "But that's not what civil justice is all about. Civil justice is about fairness, this bill is about fairness."
Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, then called out Piccola for apparently flipping his arm during Costa's response — "we're not going to flip our arm to the people of Pennsylvania who are going to be harmed by this legislation," Costa said — and Greenleaf warned that Medicaid claims will rise, but insurers won't lower premiums if the bill becomes law.
"This will be a welfare state if you pass this legislation," Greenleaf said.
A similar bill has passed a GOP-controlled Legislature twice before in Pennsylvania. After it became law in 2002, House Democratic leaders sued and state appellate courts overturned it on grounds that the bill it was written into violated the Pennsylvania Constitution's requirement that bills confine themselves to a single subject.
The Legislature later passed a replacement bill, but it was vetoed in 2006 by then-Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Details for RCS# 182
Monday Jun. 20, 2011
Senate Bill 1131 PN 1322
A3169 CORMAN AMENDMENT NO. A-3169
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2011&sess_ind=0&rc_body=S&rc_nbr=182

Summary
YEAS
28
NAYS
22
LVE
0
N/V
0
TOTAL
50

Y ALLOWAY
Y ARGALL
Y BAKER
N BLAKE
N BOSCOLA
N BREWSTER
Y BROWNE
Y BRUBAKER
Y CORMAN
N COSTA
Y DINNIMAN
Y EARLL
Y EICHELBERGER
Y ERICKSON
N FARNESE
N FERLO
Y FOLMER
N FONTANA
Y GORDNER
N GREENLEAF
N HUGHES
N KASUNIC
N KITCHEN
N LEACH
Y MCILHINNEY
Y MENSCH
N ORIE
Y PICCOLA
Y PILEGGI
Y PIPPY
Y RAFFERTY
Y ROBBINS
Y SCARNATI
N SCHWANK
Y SMUCKER
N SOLOBAY
N STACK
N TARTAGLIONE
Y TOMLINSON
Y VANCE
Y VOGEL
Y WARD
N WASHINGTON
Y WAUGH
Y WHITE DONALD
Y WHITE MARY JO
N WILLIAMS
N WOZNIAK
N YAW
N YUDICHAK


Details for RCS# 190
Tuesday Jun. 21, 2011
Senate Bill 1131 PN 1389
FINAL PASSAGE
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2011&sess_ind=0&rc_body=S&rc_nbr=190
Summary
YEAS
32
NAYS
18
LVE
0
N/V
0


TOTAL 50


Y ALLOWAY
Y ARGALL
Y BAKER
N BLAKE
Y BOSCOLA
N BREWSTER
Y BROWNE
Y BRUBAKER
Y CORMAN
N COSTA
Y DINNIMAN
Y EARLL
Y EICHELBERGER
Y ERICKSON
N FARNESE
N FERLO
Y FOLMER
N FONTANA
Y GORDNER
N GREENLEAF
N HUGHES
N KASUNIC
N KITCHEN
N LEACH
Y MCILHINNEY
Y MENSCH
Y ORIE
Y PICCOLA
Y PILEGGI
Y PIPPY
Y RAFFERTY
Y ROBBINS
Y SCARNATI
Y SCHWANK
Y SMUCKER
N SOLOBAY
N STACK
N TARTAGLIONE
Y TOMLINSON
Y VANCE
Y VOGEL
Y WARD
N WASHINGTON
Y WAUGH
Y WHITE DONALD
Y WHITE MARY JO
N WILLIAMS
N WOZNIAK
Y YAW
N YUDICHAK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the PA Medical Society Website:

Bill to Modify Pennsylvania’s Joint and Several Liability Law Now in the House
http://www.pamedsoc.org/HomePageNews/Joint-and-Several.html

A much needed liability reform bill is another step closer to becoming law. After passing the Senate by a vote of 32-18, Senate Bill 1131, which would modify Pennsylvania’s joint and several liability law, was approved by the House Judiciary Committee and now goes to the House floor for its consideration. As amended by Sen. Jake Corman (Centre, Juniata, Mifflin, Perry, and Union) and passed by the Senate, SB 1131 is now identical to House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 2, which will no longer be considered. Pennsylvania is one of only a handful of states that has complete joint and several liability. Under the current law, if one defendant is without assets or has insufficient funds to pay their share, the other defendant(s) can be held responsible for 100 percent of the jury’s award. If this legislation is passed, each responsible defendant would only have to pay their share as long as the jury finds them less than 60 percent at fault. If a defendant is found more than 60 percent at fault, they can be made to pay 100 percent of the damages, if the other defendant(s) are without sufficient funds. Some exceptions for full joint and several liability would still exist, including intentional misrepresentation, hazardous tort(s), hazardous substances released or threatened to be released, and liquor code violations. This is not the first time around for this legislation. In 2002, a very similar bill was signed into law, but was thrown out by the state Supreme Court on a procedural technicality. In 2006, Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed yet another bill after previously indicating he would sign it if it passed.PAMED has been a long-time advocate for medical liability reforms, and has been successful in getting a number of reforms passed in Pennsylvania, including Act 13 of 2002. Currently, PAMED also supports a bill to allow physician apologies (HB 495) and a bill to strengthen the certificate of merit requirements.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Legal Intelligencer
With Senate Votes, Joint and Several Liability on Track to Be Transformed
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202498110403&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The%20Legal%20Intelligencer&pt=TLI%20AM%20Legal%20Alert&cn=TLI_am20110622&kw=With%20Senate%20Votes%2C%20Joint%20and%20Several
Amaris Elliott-Engel
June 22, 2011

As state Sen. Jake Corman fought back a proposal to temper changes to Pennsylvania's joint and several liability doctrine, he said the original proposal to limit the circumstances under which a defendant has to pay for another defendant's part of a judgment was the result of a compromise struck back in 2002.
The state Senate voted Monday 28-22 and Tuesday 32-18 to amend Senate Bill 1131 to strip it of exceptions that would have maintained the application of joint and several liability to economic damages and cases involving the interests of minors.
With the amendment, Senate Bill 1131's language mirrors the language of a bill passed by the House of Representatives, backed by Gov. Tom Corbett, but bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposal would require defendants that are apportioned responsibility for causing a plaintiff's injuries at 60 percent or less to only pay the portion for which they were found liable.
The 60 percent proposal is the same as one that became law in 2002 before being struck down by the state Supreme Court on procedural grounds and was passed by the General Assembly in 2006, only to be vetoed by then-Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat.
Corman, a Centre County Republican, said that the exemptions backed by state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, the majority chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were well meaning but would dramatically reduce the impact of what Republicans in Harrisburg are trying to accomplish with changing the state's tort law.
"We don't compensate one by taking from another who was not found by a jury to have that level of responsibility," Corman said. He also pointed out that about 40 states have changed the doctrine of joint and several liability in some form.
Pennsylvania's doctrine of joint and several liability is likely to be revised because the House of Representatives already has passed parallel legislation to modify the doctrine and Corbett said in his budget address that he would sign legislation abrogating the doctrine of joint and several liability, arguing legal liability scares jobs away and leaves minor players stuck paying the full price of lawsuits.
While the language is the same in the amended SB 1131 and House Bill 1, the same bill has to pass both chambers of the General Assembly. In April, the state House of Representatives approved HB 1, known as the "Fair Share Act," on a 112-88 vote.
Erik Arneson, communications and policy director for Sen. Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, said in an e-mail the most likely option would be for the House to take up SB 1131 after it reached final passage in the Senate.
Defense attorney Craig Murphey, president of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and a partner with MacDonald Illig in Erie, said unlike other states, this proposal would not completely eliminate the concept of joint and several liability.
"We believe that this will create a more even playing field for plaintiffs and defendants," Murphey said. "We think the 60 percent threshold is a reasonable compromise and it eliminates the real harm" to defendants compelled to pay more than their proportion of a judgment because a co-defendant could not afford to pay the award.
Fewer defendants could be brought into lawsuits under the proposed regime because there will be less likelihood of having to pay the entire judgment, so there may be less motivation "to bring in a co-defendant who may only have a tangential involvement in an incident," Murphey said.
Plaintiffs attorney Mark W. Tanner, co-managing partner of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig in Philadelphia, said in an e-mail that legislators "elected to shift the burden of providing fair compensation to victims away from wrongdoers, and have placed it squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers. At the end of the day, that is who will bear ultimate responsibility for the socioeconomic survival of victims and their families who may now be unable, by virtue of this legislation, to collect the fair compensation from the parties responsible for causing them harm."
Tanner predicted that the bill may cause defendants to bring in more co-defendants because primary tortfeasors will face less exposure if there are more co-defendants.
Greenleaf said on the floor of the Senate Monday that he agreed it was important to revise joint and several liability, but he said the 60 percent threshold was abandoning a state policy that favors injured victims.
Now all of a sudden, "instead of protecting victims we're protecting defendants," Greenleaf said.
Greenleaf bottled up HB 1's companion, SB 2, in committee and crafted alternatives to the proposal because he argued joint and several liability still provides important protection in the tort system to injured victims.
The proposal already preserves joint and several liability in cases of intentional misrepresentation, an intentional tort, release of a hazardous substance or a dram shop action.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, asked why an innocent victim should bear the risk in an imperfect world when a defendant who has done wrong can't pay damages.
State Sen. Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, and Greenleaf argued that states that have limited the doctrine of joint and several liability have worse unemployment rates than Pennsylvania, while Sen. Donald White, R-Indiana, said that Pennsylvania ranks at the bottom in the country's job growth. Reforming joint and several liability could increase the number of jobs in the state because businesses may feel more likely to engage in a job-creating enterprise, White said.
Corman said that representatives of Pennsylvania businesses and the health care industry said changing joint and several liability was their top legislative priority. •


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

((Excellent piece, only four pages, good analysis of what works and what doesn't work....))

The State of Medical Liability Reform
July 2011 Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/bulletin/2011/pollack0711.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mississippi Clarion Ledger
Torts: Remember bad, ol' days?
3:53 PM, Jun. 16, 2011
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20110619/OPINION01/106190309/Torts-Remember-bad-ol-days-?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp

Mississippi's tort reform efforts were being widely criticized over the past week, as the state Supreme Court addresses the issue.
The court is trying to determine if the state's $1 million cap on non-economic damages is constitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the request in the case of a Mississippi woman who sued Sears, Roebuck and Co. after she was involved in a collision with one of its vans in Neshoba County.
As per the state's cap, a federal judge reduced a federal jury's award from $4 million, of which $2.2 million was for non-economic damages. The appeals court asked the state court to review the case.
That has prompted renewed debate about the "fairness" of Mississippi tort reforms. Some folks must have short memories.
Some may not remember that less than a decade ago, the state faced a crisis in the availability and affordability of insurance. Doctors were retiring early, leaving the state and limiting high-risk services. Hospitals couldn't retain doctors or recruit new ones with rising insurance rates.
The Clarion-Ledger's 2002 series "Fighting Lawyers, Fleeing Doctors: Seeking A Cure" and "Hitting the Jackpot in Mississippi Courtrooms" elucidated the issues.
Under former Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, the 2002 Legislature capped non-economic "or pain and suffering" damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and other reforms. It was a historic moment for the state. But insurers and businesses complained that tort reform was only half done, both in civil justice (business) and medical malpractice reforms.
Some groups labeled Mississippi a "judicial hellhole" for frivolous lawsuits and multi-million dollar verdicts.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour campaigned on the issue, saying he would finish the reform job.
So, in 2004, under Barbour, the Legislature passed a comprehensive package of business tort reforms and expanded on medical issues from 2002.
Since Mississippi adopted tort reforms, the state has lost its reputation as a place where "jackpot justice" ruled.
Other states have caps, too, so the state Supreme Court action is being closely watched.
The essential element should be remembered that it is not the amount of the cap that's key, but that a cap is set. Insurance companies must have a standard to determine risk, some basis for potential losses.
Caps on non-economic damages do just that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Institute for Legal Reform
The Lone Star Model:
Lawsuit Reform Has Helped Fuel Texas' Job Creation Machine

While the most of the nation continues to struggle to recover from the economic downturn, one state has led the way in creating jobs: Texas.In fact, according to Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher:

Since the recovery began, 38 percent of all the jobs created in America have been created in the State of Texas.And, according to Fisher, lawsuit reform has been an integral part of Texas' amazing jobs recovery.During the past decade, Texas Governor Rick Perry has signed into law three major pieces of lawsuit reform legislation -- the most recent coming this spring.These reforms are helping making the Lone Star State a less-threatening place to do business, and they are helping to fuel the state's job creation machine.Click below to watch the clip of Richard Fisher explaining the impact of lawsuit reform on CNBC's Squawk Box:

The Institute for Legal Reform is an advocacy group working to end lawsuit abuse. ILR is a national campaign of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, faster, and fairer for everyone.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

June 20, 2011

Rep. Fleming Tells the Truth on Medicare
To view this youtube video please click the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/larep04#p/u/4/Nd7HJoweTic

For the latest videos from Washington, D.C. Please Click Here
Sincerely, JOHN FLEMING, M.D.Member of Congress

Dr. John Fleming is Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a physician and small business owner and represents the 4th Congressional District of Louisiana.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

((This is a marvelous montage of the members of the Doctors' Caucus talking about Medicare reform!))

The Medicare Truth - GOP Doctors Caucus
From: larep04 Jun 17, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/larep04#p/u/5/BWQTPjYWQB0


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Editor:

Important qualifier here - while I disagree with the AMA's position on the PPACA and will work in any way possible to see the new health care law repealed, defunded, declared unconstitutional or any combination of the three, I find the vast majority of the work which has been done in the past - and continues to be done today - by the AMA and the AMA Alliance, to which I PROUDLY belong, to be of GREAT VALUE to America's health and welfare.

Another important qualifier - unless otherwise stated, NOTHING I SAY IN THIS NEWSLETTER IS THE OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL POSITION OF THE AMA ALLIANCE, WHICH IS A NON-POLITICAL CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION which engages in legislative, but NEVER political advocacy. My opinions are MY opinions, and shouldn't reflect on the AMA Alliance or the PA Medical Society Alliance in any way.

As in the AMA, there are Alliance members on BOTH sides of the political divide over the PPACA. But that doesn't stop us from working together to help improve the health of America's communities through health awareness projects, medical and nursing school scholarships, support of medical families and health projects, and much, much more, and that important work needs to continue, regardless of whether we agree on a single policy point or not. There WAS no dissent at the AMA Alliance meeting in Chicago, at which I proudly represented the Pennsylvania Medical Society Alliance, for which I will become president in October. In fact, the amazing group of volunteers representing their state and county Alliances may be the most productive and forward-thinking group of people I've ever known, and we don't intend to let policy disagreements interrupt the important work we do to improve America's health.

I don't want anyone to assume that I want to see the AMA diminished by what I consider to be a poor policy choice about the PPACA. In fact, my advice to the physicians with whom I correspond regularly and in this newsletter has always been that if doctors don't LIKE AMA policy, they should get involved and CHANGE AMA policy. I still firmly believe that - the AMA is just like Congress in that respect - its members shape the policies it adopts.

I respect the efforts being made by those within the AMA to change policy, even if they weren't successful this time, as I respect and admire the efforts being made by those who've chosen another path and support OTHER organizations which represent physicians.

The bottom line for me has always been this - doctors need to be involved in policy, legislation, and politics, no matter HOW MUCH they might hate the necessity. If they're not, someone ELSE will decide how doctors should practice medicine, what kind of health care Americans will be able to access, and who will be responsible for making decisions about that care. Right NOW, a whole lot of people who didn't go to medical school are making decisions that ONLY DOCTORS should be making, and America's doctors are at least partially responsible for the position they find themselves in right now.

For far too long, America's doctors have been SO focused on providing quality health care to their patients that they've forgotten to take care of their own profession. They've been content to pay dues to some organization - or worse, pay dues to NO organizations - to represent their interests. But the only person who can be relied upon to look out for one's interests all the time is oneself - and the majority of doctors in America have defaulted the protection of their right to practice medicine in the way they were trained to other people for FAR TOO LONG.

It may already be too late to preserve medicine as an independent profession dedicated to quality care and the doctor-patient relationship. Already, there are bureaucrats writing thousands of pages of regulation that will put themselves in between doctors and patients. And if doctors don't speak up and get involved RIGHT NOW, it will be too late.

So here's your challenge - if you're mad at the AMA, JOIN IT and take it back. If you're not sure where your state medical society stands, FIND OUT. MANY of them openly oppose the PPACA and others don't support it even if they haven't taken a public position. Join your COUNTY medical society - there's nowhere you can impact policy more than at the local level.

Find out where your specialty society stands and JOIN IT at the state and national level. Explore the many other groups which are advocating for repeal of the PPACA, like the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons or AAPS, Docs4PatientCare, the Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights, the Benjamin Rush Society, Take Back the Profession, the Coalition of State Medical and National Specialty Societies, the Citizens Council for Health Freedom, the Lucidicus Project - you can google and find any of these, and there are more, probably lots more.

Join more than one. HELL, JOIN THEM ALL - and then DO SOMETHING instead of waiting for a lobbyist or a staff member to do it for you. Yeah, I know you don't have the time. You need to MAKE THE TIME. Unless you've GIVEN UP on being able to provide the best quality care for your patients - then, just sit back and let it all happen.

Legislators at all levels of government need to hear from America's doctors and medical families more now than ever before. Doctors and the people who support them must stand together to protect not only the profession, but America's quality of health care. Dissonance among health care professionals WEAKENS their ability to stand up to the challenges facing the profession.

Physicians and physicians' groups which oppose the PPACA and support repeal of the PPACA need to find ways to network and work together to achieve that goal. More doctors need to run for Congress in 2012 - or for their state legislatures. More doctors need to get onto legislators' advisory boards, or get involved in campaigns for people who support their goals.

I'll do whatever I can to make what YOU have to do easier - and so will all the groups I listed and others I probably don't even know about. But YOU must take the initiative to reach out and partner with other physicians who feel the way you do. Bitching in the doctors' lounge or on a blog or on Facebook may make you feel better for a little while, but it doesn't make a real difference. Only GETTING INVOLVED can make the difference that needs to be made.

And ONLY YOU can do that for yourself and your profession.

Need direction? Just ask - I'm here to help. And, as always, it is my honor to fight alongside of America's dedicated doctors....

DBR


From Modern Physician

READER POLL: Is the AMA right on the individual mandate? http://www.modernphysician.com/article/20110624/MODERNPHYSICIAN/306249952/1207?trk=mp_newsletter

Do you agree with the AMA's decision to continue its support for the so-called individual mandate?

TAKE OUR POLL » — Modern Physician

((The NO votes were winning when I last checked....but not by much.))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chicago Examiner
Former AMA chief predicts demise of ObamaCare
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-chicago/former-ama-chief-predicts-demise-of-obamacareJune 23, 2011 10:35 am CT
Keith Liscio

In an exclusive interview, former American Medical Association President Donald Palmisano predicted that whether by court action or the legislative process, President Obama’s signature healthcare reform law would be overturned. Dr. Palmisano spoke to your Chicago Conservative Examiner while he was in Chicago for the AMA’s annual conference this week and is the spokesman for the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights.
First and foremost, Palmisano (who is an attorney as well as a doctor) believes that the law will not survive scrutiny in the Supreme Court. He bases this opinion on an analysis of the expected swing vote on the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
According to Palmisano, Kennedy has generally been reluctant to extend the Commerce Clause of the Constitution unnecessarily. In this case, the Obama administration is hoping that the court will essentially give it permission to regulate a person’s right not to buy health insurance by imposing a fine. Palmisano believes that this will be viewed by the court as regulating “inactivity” and will not stand, saying, “If the government can regulate that, they can force you to do anything.”
Regardless of the eventual legal outcome of the measure, however, he believes that public dissatisfaction with the law may cause the election of enough Republicans in the Senate in 2012 to overturn it legislatively. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already voted to defund implementation of the law.
As to the AMA Convention, Palmisano was disappointed that the organization voted to reaffirm its position that individuals be responsible for purchasing health insurance. This position has been widely seen as tacit support for the individual mandate in the President’s healthcare law.
Perhaps more importantly, however, the organization voted to oppose the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and the AMA will now actively work to overturn it. IPAB is a new unelected and unaccountable 15- member group appointed by the President and empowered to make recommendations without Congressional approval to cut spending in Medicare if spending growth exceeds certain levels. Palmisano, CPPR and now the AMA believe that sweeping changes to the nation’s healthcare policy should have Congressional approval.
Although he is strenuously opposed to the law, Palmisano refuses to call it “ObamaCare,” considering that term “a pejorative.” At the same time, he feels like the official name of the act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is something of a misnomer, claiming, “It doesn’t protect patients and isn’t making care more affordable.”
Asked if his position was influenced by partisan considerations, Palmisano said, “I’m a scientist. I believe in applying the scientific method and making decisions based on experimentation and proof. By that standard, [ObamaCare] is a disaster.”
The Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights is made up of thousands of health care professionals who are dedicated to improving the quality and availability of healthcare for all Americans. The organization believes that President Obama’s healthcare reform has reduced the quality and accessibility of American health care.

Donald Palmisano, MD, JD, FACS, is a clinical professor of surgery and clinical professor of medical jurisprudence at Tulane University School of Medicine and an adjunct professor at The Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in the department of Health Systems Management. He is the author of the book On Leadership – Essential Principles for Success.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Washington Times
PALMISANO: Nailing Obamacare’s rationing board
Republicans and Democrats join forces to stop a Medicare killer
By Dr. Donald J. Palmisano
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/20/nailing-obamacares-rationing-board/
6:50 p.m., Monday, June 20, 2011

With Medicare’s trustees predicting the Medicare program will go bankrupt in 2024 - five years earlier than was projected before the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - even Americans who strongly supported Obamacare have little choice but to acknowledge that Medicare must be reformed - and soon. While lawmakers continue to argue about the best way to protect this vital program for the seniors it serves and those who it has yet to serve, there is a growing bipartisan consensus that the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is one provision of the new health law that will do more to undermine the program than save it.
Recently, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, Pennsylvania Democrat, became the seventh Democrat to sign on as a co-sponsor to a Republican bill that calls for the repeal of the board. In announcing her decision, she referred to the IPAB as a “flawed policy that will risk beneficiary access to care.”
This new effort to repeal IPAB is gaining momentum and could eventually bring together most House Republicans and many of the 72 House Democrats who fought to prevent the the board from being included in the new law in the first place. In addition, many of the groups that supported Obamacare like the American Medical Association, American Heart Association and AARP are now expressing opposition to IPAB and joining those that opposed it, including the organization for which I am a spokesperson, the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights.
Unfortunately, most people in the country, including seniors relying on Medicare, have no idea what IPAB is or how it will affect their lives if it ever becomes operational. More concerning, President Obama decided to make the board the centerpiece of his efforts to reduce the deficit by calling for it to be strengthened - not eliminated. Starting in 2015, the IPAB will give 15 unelected bureaucrats unprecedented power to slash billions of dollars from Medicare when spending exceeds targeted growth rates. The cuts made by the board will come on top of the $500 billion that was transferred from Medicare to a new entitlement program as a result of the new health care law. Democrats and Republicans have found little common ground in recent years, but there has been widespread agreement that the IPAB could exacerbate the shortage of doctors who see Medicare patients and ultimately, contribute to a reduced quality of care for our most vulnerable.
At a time when all Americans are tiring of partisan politics from both political parties, we must take advantage of the few issues on which both sides can agree. Our lawmakers must now show they are still able to put their short-term political squabbles aside for the common good of America’s patients by repealing IPAB and uniting for a constructive debate on ways to save our nation’s valued Medicare program.

Dr. Donald J. Palmisano is the former president of American Medical Association and spokesperson for the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Donald Palmisano - Past President of the American Medical Association (AMA) 2003-2004 - joins Don and Roma - 6/21/2011

http://www.wlsam.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=17424&ID=2218663
Download this show
Listen

Don and Roma talk with Dr. Donald Palmisano, Past President of the American Medical Association 2003-2004.
Find out more about what Dr. Palmisano is writing and talking aboutwww.intrepidresources.com
Find out about Dr. Palmisano's book, "On Leadership: Essential Principles for Business, Political and Personal Success"www.OnLeadership.US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

((Dr. Palmisano is a clarion voice for the kind of health care reform America REALLY needs - not to mention one of my personal heroes. Anyone who aspires to be a success at anything should read his book, On Leadership, Essential Principles for Business, Political and Personal Success. It was a pleasure to see Dr. P and his wife Robin at the AMA meeting in Chicago earlier this week. As always, Dr. Palmisano was standing up for what he believes is right and fighting for America's health. It is an honor to know this outstanding leader. A more detailed review of On Leadership will follow in a subsequent edition of this newsletter.))

Find out about Dr. Palmisano's book, "On Leadership: Essential Principles for Business, Political and Personal Success"www.OnLeadership.US

Or buy it on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Essential-Principles-Success-ebook/dp/B001IKKDVM/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This LIABILITY & HEALTH REFORM UPDATE is a free service which I provide, as a volunteer, to help supply medical liability reform and health care reform news and information, legislative updates, and political insight to physicians, patients, liability reform and quality health care advocates. NO ONE pays me to do this. I am not employed by any physician or health care reform advocacy or liability reform organization, political party or candidate, although I volunteer for several. I am an advocate for quality health care, physicians, and patients , a breast cancer survivor, physician's spouse, journalist, political noisemaker, mom, and freelance writer. I am not, nor will I ever claim to be, unbiased (I am....biased, I mean), unlike many in the mainstream media. Most information in this newsletter is copied and pasted from other sources, and will always be identified with links. Opinions and clarifications are my own, and do not reflect the official position of any physician or patient advocacy organization, tort reform, or health care reform group unless stated as such. My opinions are placed in double parentheses (("my opinion")), italicized and appear in blue.
This Update is emailed to health professionals, physician and patient advocates, and others interested in ensuring access to quality medical care.
Join our Google Group or Facebook Page or email LiabilityNEWS@aol.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line to ensure you get all issues ASAP. It also appears on the following BLOG (when I remember to post it): http://liabilityandhealthnewsupdate.blogspot.com.

If you'd prefer not to receive these periodic updates about health care issues in America, please hit "Reply" and put "Unsub health group" in the subject line and I'll remove your email address immediately.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO EVERY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL OR PATIENT YOU KNOW SO WE CAN GET THIS INFORMATION TO MORE OF THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.

Donna Baver Rovito, Editor, Liability and Health Reform Update
ROVSPA@aol.com
DonnaRovito@gmail.com
LiabilityNEWS@aol.com

Google Group/Blog: http://groups.google.com/group/liabilityandhealthnewsupdate
Blog: http://liabilityandhealthnewsupdate.blogspot.com
Liability&Health News Update Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=105855632790520
Peter F. Rovito, MD Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Allentown-PA/Dr-Peter-F-Rovito-MD-General-and-Bariatric-weight-loss-Surgery/129753870409168?v=wall