Malpractice in the Medical Field - Research Paper Example

?Malpractice in the medical field In the contemporary practice, premiums in the medical malpractice have reached their apogee. Doctors are leaving their profession in large numbers. Those that have stayed in the field of medicine are overwhelmed with silence and fear. Perplexed and outraged doctors march over the state capitols. It is generally believed that all of these various negative pictures of the contemporary medical field can fundamentally be attributed to the explosion of medical malpractice litigation whereas in reality, more and more people are falling prey to the medical malpractice. The real cause of all this unrest is the increased competition in the insurance industry and the recent financial trends. Analysis It is conventionally thought that the cases of sue made by the plaintiffs are readily experienced because of the lawyers’ greed. Companies that provide insurance to the hospitals and doctors have to cope with tough challenges as they have to make the compensation charged by the civil justice system. All of this is happening so often that the medical malpractice litigation has become a joke. It has become more of a game wherein the plaintiffs and lawyers show up too often to charge the doctors and healthcare providers, hence developing a myth about the medical malpractice. Built on a foundation of urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies, and repeated so often that even the mythmakers forget the exaggeration, half truth, and outright misinformation employed in the service of their greater good, the medical malpractice myth has filled doctors, patients, legislators, and voters with the kind of fear that short circuits critical thinking. (Baker, 2005, p. 1). The legislative action has been affected by this fear for at least three times on the scale of the whole nation. The first time it happened was in 1970s when the insurance for medical malpractice called for very large premiums. As a result of the runaway juries and the frivolous litigation, many doctors had abandoned their profession. At that time, the medical societies directed their efforts at complicating the processes for the misguided patients as well as their lawyers so that they would have difficulty suing the doctors. The actual problem, on the contrary, was the medical malpractice itself and not litigation in particular. The California Hospital and Medical Associations became the sponsors of a research in the late 1970s which according to their expectations, would reinforce their efforts for the tort reform (Baker, 2005). But the team was surprised to know that every year, millions of people were being injured by the medical malpractice. The number of people being injured this way was much more than the number of people being caught in the workplace or car accidents annually in those years. In addition to this, what surprised the researchers even more was the fact that a vast majority of the victims of medical malpractice never sued the doctors. However, despite the surprising conclusions of this research, it remained largely unheard of because of the associations’ consensus upon the conflict between the conclusions drawn and the tort reform message. The study was printed as an association report two years after the ratification of restrictive tort reform for the medical malpractice in California. The technical summary that was published did not discuss the surprising conclusions of the research. Besides, the distribution of the printed report was very limited. It was in the mid 1980s when the abandonment of many doctors of their profession was heard of due to runaway juries and perky litigation for the second time. As a result of this, the premiums for insurance covering the medical malpractice again surged up. Tort form was again raised as a response from the insurance companies of the medical societies and the medical societies themselves. Their efforts were again directed at limiting the options for the juries. The medical societies’ claims were looked at with skepticism, though there was yet a lot to be achieved with respect to exploration of the facts concerning the litigation of the medical malpractice. The California report was hardly known by anyone. This caused a rush of restrictive legislation for the tort reform which was both being proposed and performed in many parts of the country. The third phase commenced in the year 2002 and has sustained to date ever since. This phase is characterized by an increase of information, though once can hardly make any assessment about the push form the hospitals, medical societies and the insurance companies from the remedies of the tort reform. Nevertheless, many recent researches exploring facts about the same matter have generated the results that second those obtained from the original California study. The actual issue has shown up in the form of excessive medical malpractice rather than excessive litigation. The costs of this malpractice is actually been borne by its victims and not the liability insurance providers, health care centers or the doctors. Litigation can not be considered as the main costs of the medical malpractice. The real cost is incurred in terms of the death of millions of people every year, lost productivity, overhead expenses, and also the suffering of people that bear the pressure but don’t sue. The cyclical insurance premiums of the medical malpractice are not driven by the runaway juries or perky litigation. Increased competition in the insurance industry and the financial trends are the real causes of increase in the insurance premiums for the medical malpractice during the 1970s, 1980s and the 21st century. A vast majority of the people that claim of having been the victim of malpractice actually sue just in an attempt to know what really happened. Even if they are made, many undeserving claims disperse before the first trial. Also, doctors never have to compensate unless the claimant is able to provide sound evidence for the medical malpractice. Undeserving claimants receive compensation only in exceptional cases. Thus, the conventional beliefs that the medical field is suffering from the undue claims of victims have got little to do with reality. References: Baker, T. (2005). The medical malpractice myth. USA: University of Chicago Press . Read More