tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
Its that time again... time to update on the current standings by the courts and congress in regards to matters of healthcare.
As most of you probably know, the Supreme Court has refused the fast track.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to bypass the lower courts and take up an immediate challenge to the constitutionality of the national healthcare reform law and its requirement that all those who can afford it have medical insurance by 2014.
The announcement concerned only the timing of a decision on the healthcare law and said nothing about how the court may finally rule. The justices rarely skip over the lower courts before taking up a constitutional question and have said they will do so only if a case is of such "imperative public importance" as to "require immediate determination" by the high court.
The justices without comment turned down an appeal from Virginia's attorney general, who insisted the Affordable Care Act has "roiled America" and left employers and citizens "mired in uncertainty."
The court's brief order apparently spoke for all the justices, since there was no indication that Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself. Some conservative activists have suggested that Kagan should not take part in the healthcare case since she served as U.S. solicitor general before joining the court.
The court's action almost certainty puts off a ruling on the healthcare law until at least next year.
http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-court-healthcare-20110425,0,2880068.story?track=rss
Is anyone truly surprised? Considering how conservative the court now is, this is exactly what I expected.
The second, from Congress... or more specifically, the House Judiciary Committee, has approved a bill aimed at tort control.
With the recent passage of President Obama’s health care reform, medical malpractice reform has become the topic of national headlines. According to the Library of Congress' website, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act (HEALTH Act) was approved by a vote of 18-15 in February by the House Judiciary Committee. The HEALTH Act seeks to implement national tort reform by setting limits on medical malpractice claims.
Although the national act, currently known as H.R. 5, is not intended to affect states that already have tort reform legislation in place, it may still have an impact on medical malpractice victims in Texas, in addition to all other states that do not have tort reform laws.
..........
The text of H.R. 5 states the national act would cap non-economic damages at $250,000 and limit punitive damages to $250,000, or twice the economic damages, whichever is greater. The HEALTH Act does not provide for a nationally set limit on the amount of economic damages.
........
The national medical malpractice reform act would establish a strict statute of limitations for filing medical malpractice claims. The HEALTH Act would bar a claim if not filed within one year after the injury is discovered, or three years after the injury actually occurred, whichever is earlier. The national act would also provide for limited attorney’s contingency fees.
The national act additionally seeks to limit victims’ punitive damages against pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers and distributors. The HEALTH Act does not permit punitive or exemplary damages against these entities. Currently, victims can seek exemplary damages for medical malpractice claims in Texas against these types of companies in an amount up to the state’s statutory cap.
........
The proposed national act and Texas medical malpractice laws also conflict regarding the “Collateral Source Rule,” which is followed in Texas.
This rule does not permit evidence to be presented in a lawsuit that demonstrates the claimant’s damages were paid by another source, such as worker’s compensation or health insurance. If this evidence were presented at trial, some jurors may mistakenly believe the injured person did not suffer a significant financial loss because their insurance company paid the medical bills, and these jurors may consequently award the victim less money.
However, insurance carriers have subrogation interests in any award arising from a lawsuit involving benefits paid by the carrier. This means if the insurance carrier’s insured is injured, and the carrier pays medical expenses under its policy, the insurance carrier has the right to recover any money it already paid if the insured recovers damages under a lawsuit. The carrier then collects its subrogation from the insured’s award from the lawsuit.
The HEALTH Act would permit the introduction of collateral source benefits as evidence in a lawsuit, but would not allow for the subrogation of a collateral source provider out of a claimant’s recovery.
The general goal of national tort reform is to decrease insurance premiums for doctors, reduce health care costs, and limit frivolous lawsuits. However, limits on victims’ exemplary or punitive damages may not significantly decrease insurance premiums, and Texas’ health care costs may have actually increased since the implementation of the state’s tort reform laws.
The future for H.R. 5 will soon be determined when it is voted on in the House, where it is expected to pass. However, the bill may face opposition in the Senate. Previous versions in prior years have passed the House, but failed to become law once voted on in the Senate.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/medicalmalpractice/reform/prweb8342242.htm
Hmmm... While I agree tort reform is needed, this seems to penalize those who are injured all the way around.
NC seems to get that picture...
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- Doctors whose negligence causes patient death or disfigurement wouldn't be protected by the same liability limits placed on other malpractice lawsuits, the North Carolina House decided Wednesday.
The House voted 91-27 to approve a package aimed at limiting what doctors who harm patients must pay. The bill now returns to the Senate, where it could get final approval or wind up in a committee to negotiate changes.
The measure passed easily after bipartisan pressure led to removing liability limits in cases that cause serious and tangible harm to a patient, such as loss of limbs or vision or death, that can't be measured by lost income or cost of future care. Pain and suffering and other kinds of non-economic harm would see jury awards capped at $500,000.
Limiting non-economic penalties was needed to ensure predictability for healthcare businesses and insurers, said Rep. Johnathan Rhyne, R-Lincoln, who shepherded the legislation through the House. Capping liability prevents different juries from deciding on different awards for the same set of circumstances, and the limits should apply for all types of injuries, he said.
"If we're going to have certainty and rationality it needs to apply to everything," Rhyne said. "Whether or not there is a cap should be decided in a deliberative body like this, free from any pity or sympathy."
..........
Bill supporters said limits on medical malpractice lawsuits are needed to reduce spending on tests and procedures that doctors perform to decrease the chances they'll be sued. Opponents said the limits harm the ability of patients to hold doctors responsible for their actions.
Malpractice lawsuits cannot be filed unless a plaintiff finds a doctor in the same field to review medical records and determine that negligence caused a person's injuries
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NC-House-axes-death-apf-2683201495.html?x=0&.v=1
But, again, the burden is heavily upon the victim.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
Healthcare - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread