MinnLawyer Blog

The Minnesota Association for Justice has issued a formal response to an Associate Press poll that claims a majority of people approve of stricter controls on individuals seeking accountability for medical malpractice.

In a press release issued yesterday, the MAJ decried the poll as inaccurate, misleading and adding little to enhance the debate on health care reform.

MAJ President Michael A. Bryant said the poll, conducted by Stanford University and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for the AP, asks the question in a way that the respondent is to believe that limits on malpractice accountability would substantially lower consumer insurance and health care costs.

“The problem is there is simply no evidence to support either outcome,” Bryant said.

The MAJ contends that claims that restricting legal remedies for medical malpractice would lower insurance rates for physicians and hospitals is in direct conflict with data released last month by the Medical Liability Monitor. The Monitor’s research show that there is no relation to rates between states that cap damage awards and states that don’t — and in many cases states that limit damages actually have significantly higher premiums.

According to Bryant, the AP poll “distracts from concrete facts that show that limiting our ability to be fully compensated for negligent sub-standard medical care will not result in insurance premiums reductions.”

Minnesota does not currently limit the amount of actual damages a jury can award, and in 2008, ranked 50th lowest in medical malpractice insurance premiums. According to the MAJ, Minnesota’s courts have seen a 40 percent decline in medical malpractice filings, while leading the nation in many health care outcome measures.

“As the debate on health care reform heats up in the coming days, policy makers must embrace a comprehensive set of solutions that focus on quality care, patient safety, accountability for providers and insurers, and protection of all patients in the health care system,” Bryant stated.

I have no doubt this isn’t the last we’ll hear from the MAJ on this topic. Perhaps the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association would like to add its 2 cents?