Having problems with message search?
Special Health Courts
"President Bush has cited medical liability as one of three parts of tort
reform that he wants passed in his second term. But there's no guarantee
it will withstand the assault from the plaintiffs bar, which counts
Democrats as allies.
Consequently, the concept of special health courts administered at the
state level needs to be considered, says Investor's Business Daily
(IBD).
It's possible they might work well to assign and punish fault --
which creates incentives to provide good care -- but also to suitably
compensate the injured and get rid of outrageous jury awards:
o Since the courts would still provide damages to real victims of
medical malpractice, trial lawyers might not reject them.
o After all, not every plaintiffs attorney is a predator; some want
the truly harmed to be properly compensated and honestly feel
that capping damages will in some cases prevent that.
According to the Progressive Policy Institute, the health courts, called
medical tribunals by some, would have the following characteristics:
o They would use specially qualified judges; their decisions would
help mold clear legal standards that physicians would be expected
to follow.
o They would have no juries because jurors "have the impossible
task of trying to discern legal standards when they should be
deciding facts."
o If they find malpractice, judges would determine awards based on
a schedule of benefits.
o The medical tribunals, not plaintiffs and defendants, would hire
the expert witnesses; presumably, this would provide more
independent and objective testimony.
These points show why health courts have won bipartisan support. If
they're interested in a solution, policy-makers would be wise to at
least look at this alternative to our broken system, says IBD. "
Source: Editorial, "Caps Or Courts?" Investor's Business Daily, March
18, 2005.
For IBD text:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=3/18 For more on Health Care Reform:
Offline 
Send Email