Category Archives: Connecticut

August 2018 Newsletter

The reality of defensive medicine With projections about the cost implications of defensive medicine in the hundreds of millions of dollars, a new study showed greater insight into how physicians treated patients when they were not subject to the threat of lawsuits. The reality of defensive medicine became apparent when researchers from Duke and MIT, on behalf of the National Bureau of Economic Research, focused on active-duty military who were treated by government health care systems that are protected from medical liability lawsuits. When compared to treatment received by active-duty military from civilian medical professionals who are subject to liability, the study found “suggestive evidence that liability immunity reduces inpatient spending by 5% with no measurable negative effect on patient outcomes.” The study did an in-depth analysis on quality indicators to be sure doctors weren’t providing substandard care, and found no instances where the quality of care in the military health care facilities appeared to be worse. “Our analysis demonstrates that the active duty receiving care on the base are treated notably less intensively, without any health outcome consequences. Considering the lack of liability recourse for his treatment group, this pattern of results is suggestive of a strong degree of…

Read More

On the Rise: What Is Driving the Cost of Medical Malpractice Insurance?

When the latest medical malpractice premium notice arrives at a physician’s office, it is not often for a small amount. Even practices that have avoided expensive lawsuits or claims are not shielded from rising premiums. Often, it seems that rising medical malpractice premiums are like death and taxes: inevitable. Medical malpractice premiums differ from one state to another and among specialties, yet they are all driven by the same factor: the cost of risk. Insurance carriers evaluate the cost of risk by actuarially assessing the probability of errors, the cost associated with defending claims, the cost of potential settlements, and organizational operational costs. In addition to state mandates regarding medical malpractice coverage, many hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) require coverage, and their limits may differ from state requirements. Insurance carriers care about hard and soft markets. In hard markets, carriers lose money, so relatively few carriers offer coverage. In hard markets, insurance is difficult—if not impossible—to obtain until premiums rise to offset the risk involved. In soft markets, carriers make money, so there is usually an influx of new carriers willing to write new policies at lower premiums than those that currently exist. This has occurred twice in Connecticut…

Read More

December 2017 Newsletter

Year-end report sheds light on “Judicial Hellholes” The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) end-of-year “Judicial Hellholes” report offers a public glimpse at the most unfriendly jurisdictions for those defending themselves against civil litigation, including medical liability lawsuits. At the top of the list this year was Florida, where once-strong medical liability reforms have been continuously rolled back at the expense of patients seeking affordable and accessible care. “This year, thanks to a state high court majority’s barely contained contempt for the policy-making authority of the legislative and executive branches of government, and a notoriously aggressive and sometimes lawless plaintiffs’ bar, Florida earns the ignominious #1 ranking among eight Judicial Hellholes…” said American Tort Reform Association president Tiger Joyce. Also high on the list was St. Louis, where “antiquated rules have made it a favorite of personal-injury lawyers shopping for big-money verdicts” resulting in $300 million in awards since 2015. However, recent changes in state government, including a governor in support of changes to the liability system, do hold promise for much-needed reform in the coming year. To read more about ATRA’s “Judicial Hellholes” executive summary and report on the where physicians and defendants fare the worst when it comes to…

Read More

High Court’s Contempt for Lawmakers’ Authority, Lawsuit Rackets Place Florida atop Latest ‘Judicial Hellholes’ List

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 5, 2017 – The American Tort Reform Foundation issued its 2017-2018 Judicial Hellholes® report today, naming courts in Florida, California, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana among the nation’s “most unfair” in their handling of civil litigation. “With both this annual report and a year-round website, our Judicial Hellholes program since 2002 has been documenting troubling developments in jurisdictions where civil court judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants,” began American Tort Reform Association president Tiger Joyce. “This year, thanks to a state high court majority’s barely contained contempt for the policy-making authority of the legislative and executive branches of government, and a notoriously aggressive and sometimes lawless plaintiffs’ bar, Florida earns the ignominious #1 ranking among eight Judicial Hellholes, even as authorities have begun to crack down on some of the lawsuit industry’s most obviously fraudulent rackets. “Ranked #2 is perennial hellhole California, where lawmakers, prosecutors and plaintiff-friendly judges inexorably expand civil liability at the expense of businesses, jobseekers and those desperately in need of affordable housing,” Joyce explained. “The good news is the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed a…

Read More