Liability, workforce changes needed to reach rural New Mexico patients
A recent policy report from Think New Mexico lays out an ambitious roadmap to tackle the state’s health care workforce shortages, focused on improving access to care and reducing meritless litigation.
The shortage of health care providers across the rural state was evident to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and indications point to a worsening crisis over the next decade. Patients across New Mexico already have fewer options for accessible care, with a 30% decrease in primary care providers between 2017 and 2021.
Think New Mexico proposes ten comprehensive reforms, highlighting the importance and urgency of prioritizing a full-scale reform of medical liability laws. Medical liability reform is cited as one of several recommendations in the report that would result in a net positive for taxpayers by reducing non-value-added health care costs.
The proposal put forth several tried-and-true reforms, including capping attorneys’ fees, ending the lump-sum payouts introduced by 2021 legislative changes, and limiting the punitive damages that juries can award to plaintiffs.
“The main beneficiaries of these loopholes in the Medical Malpractice Act are lawyers,” said Fred Nathan, Think New Mexico’s executive director. “The reforms that we’re proposing would prioritize the patient while making New Mexico a better place for health care providers to practice and paying lawyers a fair wage for their services.”
With an aging physician workforce and a dire need for structural changes, Think New Mexico calls on state leaders to prioritize these reforms in the 2025 legislative session. Click here to read how the proposed measures aim to create a more balanced and efficient healthcare system, benefiting both providers and patients alike.
Jackpot Justice arrives in Philadelphia
A recent surge in medical liability filings in Philadelphia has sparked concerns about the impact on patients and the continued abuse of the legal system.
With the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule change in 2023 that ended the requirement for cases to be filed in the county where care was provided, personal injury lawyers have increasingly targeted Philadelphia juries, known for their high verdicts. This shift has led to a dramatic increase in lawsuits being filed in the city, in some cases over 100 miles away from the providers in question.
One provider, Main Line Health, faces 28 liability lawsuits filed in the city based on care provided in the Philadelphia suburbs. Between January 2023 and April 2024, 43% of 657 medical liability complaints initiated in Philadelphia were based on care provided outside the city – with “dozens of cases” overwhelming the court system monthly.
The allure of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements are driving “venue shopping,” as cases can now be filed in any county where a defendant regularly conducts business. Abuse of this definition is seen in many of the cases filed in Philadelphia. One such case cites the Philadelphia home address of a temporary staffer from a hospital 124 miles away as its basis for filing in the city.
Nick Gaudiosi, East Region Health-care Practice Leader for Aon, likened the situation to casino jackpots: “Philadelphia is like a slot machine. It’s a slot machine that everybody wants to play.”
The consequences of this trend are dire for patients. The rise in lawsuits and potential for high verdicts is beginning to lead to higher insurance premiums and reduced access to care, particularly in suburban areas now embroiled in Philadelphia’s legal quagmire.
This troubling trend highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms and an end to the ability to venue shop for jackpot justice across the state of Pennsylvania. To read more about the increase in liability lawsuits and its impact on patient care and costs in Pennsylvania, click here.
Artificial and augmented intelligence pose real risks
As artificial and augmented intelligence models become increasingly integrated into all aspects of patient care, significant questions about liability arise, particularly when AI systems contribute to adverse outcomes for patients.
The challenge of determining accountability in such cases remains a pressing concern. Health care providers often enter agreements with AI companies that supply advanced tools like AI-powered medical image analysis. Chris Dwight, a partner at Poyner Spruill law firm who has been involved in incorporating AI for medical applications, spoke recently on the importance of identifying liability at the start, during contract and licensing negotiations.
Dwight urged providers to carefully negotiate these contracts, focusing on the allocation of risk and ensuring that AI providers indemnify the health care practices in case of errors. He highlighted the dangers of AI “hallucinations,” which occur when AI models generate false information, potentially leading to medical liability lawsuits.
He advised practices to “push back hard and to require the AI provider to indemnify and hold the practice harmless if, in fact, there are errors in what the AI system produces.”
The American Medical Association has been a leading voice on augmented intelligence in medicine, with dedicated resources on its policy and advocacy in this area.
A remaining unknown is if or when AI models may limit the damages for which they are liable, making it even more critical that health care providers scrutinize liability clauses for substantial indemnification. This proactive approach protects healthcare providers from undue financial burdens and ensures that patient care remains uncompromised in the face of evolving AI technologies.
Guidance related to augmented intelligence across the practice of medicine is fast evolving and underscores the importance of safeguarding both medical practices and patient outcomes in contracts involving AI services. To read more on the work still required in the development of augmented intelligence in medicine, click here.