Women in New Jersey Harmed by State’s Liability Laws
Against the backdrop of an unfriendly medical liability climate, women in New Jersey are facing fewer options for health and reproductive care.
Forecasted shortages of obstetricians and gynecologists are coming to fruition in the state. Most recently, Cape Regional Medical Center in the southern part of the state — and the only hospital in its county — stopped offering hospital-based obstetric services after struggling to hire OB-GYNs. The nearest hospital is nearly 30 miles away.
“A lot of medical students and residents leave the state, and it’s a combined reason,” said Dr. Lisa Pompeo, residency program director at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. “One is the malpractice climate.”
New Jersey ranks fifth in the nation in medical liability lawsuits, behind Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois, according to the 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report. OB-GYNs placed fifth among 29 specialty groups that are most often sued, adding to the litigious environment for New Jersey OB-GYNs.
Another factor is how medical liability adds to the cost of practicing medicine. New Jersey OB-GYNs paid an average annual premium of $90,749 in 2021 for medical liability insurance, based on a policy with with coverage limits of $1 million per occurrence and an aggregate of $3 million.
Combined with a high cost of living, OB-GYNs are choosing to start their careers elsewhere or leave the state, leaving women without critical access to care.
To read more about how women in New Jersey are paying a high price thanks to the state’s medical liability environment, click here.
COVID-Era Liability Legislation in North Carolina Losing Support
The stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic inflicted on our nation’s health care system are beginning to fade from memory, with state-based protections for hospitals and providers losing support in the absence of federal protections.
In North Carolina, the state legislature passed limited immunity for health care providers practicing during the pandemic, leaving important exceptions for cases of gross negligence, reckless misconduct or the intentional infliction of harm.
“The statute as written confers immunity when the health care services are impacted, either directly or indirectly, by the response the health care facility or health care provider is making to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Nash Long, an attorney with Charlotte-based Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and former chair of the Health Law Litigation Committee of the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section.
“If there is no impact that can be shown as a result of the response, then the immunity would not apply.”
Even with those restrictions, legislators are looking at the possibility that the General Assembly could revisit or undo the protections in the upcoming legislative session.
A medical liability lawsuit recently filed in the state will serve as a test of the constitutionality and scope of those laws and could accelerate aggressive challenges to COVID-19 liability claims going forward.
Click here to read more about how North Carolina could revisit pandemic protections for health care providers and impact medical lawsuit abuse.
Alaska Patients Facing Chilly Liability Climate After Recent Ruling
A long-standing medical liability provision in Alaska has been overturned by the state Supreme Court, increasing the threat of lawsuit abuse and windfall payments across the state’s liability system.
Earlier this month, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that limiting financial awards in medical liability lawsuits according to collateral source rules is unconstitutionally biased against Alaskans with medical insurance.
These collateral sources could include health insurance reimbursement, workers’ compensation, and disability insurance payments and are in place to prevent double recovery of the same damages.
The Health Coalition on Liability and Access has long supported making juries aware of collateral sources of payments and allow offsets for those payments. In addition, the HCLA also supports a ban on subrogation, to ensure that settlements and awards go to the victim and not other insurance companies. Under this scenario the plaintiff would be fully compensated but would be less likely to receive a windfall; as would his attorney.
While the case has returned to a lower court for continued proceedings, it represents another threat to access to care across the state’s rural health care system and increases the possibility of windfall judgements that raise the cost of health care services for Alaskans.
To read more about the Alaska Supreme Court ruling, click here.