Archive for the ‘medical malpractice reform’ Category

The Arizona Senate has introduced legislation that would increase the standard of proof for emergency room medical malpractice lawsuits. Under the proposed law, recovery for emergency room malpractice would require that plaintiffs show “clear and convincing evidence” of malpractice, which is more difficult to prove than the current requirement of a “preponderance of the evidence.” Changing the law in this way would make it more difficult for patients to obtain damages from the doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers that are responsible for their injuries.

The law’s sponsors say that it is intended to persuade doctors, particularly specialists, to work in hospital emergency rooms. Many doctors allegedly are unwilling to work in emergency rooms because they fear malpractice lawsuits from dissatisfied and injured patients. Tuscon attorney and Arizona Trial Lawyers Association lobbyist JoJene Mills objected to the law, saying that it would deprive injured individuals of their civil rights.

Versions of the bill have been voted on in both the Arizona Senate and House of Representatives, where it passed on June 22 and June 26, respectively. A similar law was approved by the legislature in 2006, but was vetoed by then-governor Janet Napolitano, who is currently serving as the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. Read more about medical malpractice.

From conception to childbirth, pregnant women are challenged with managing their own health while worrying about the welfare of their unborn child. Every year, approximately 500,000 pregnant women in the U.S. battle conditions that require medical treatment, such as cancer, psychiatric illness, autoimmune disease, and influenza. Numerous warnings exist about the use of any type of medication whether prescription or over the counter. These battles leave a pregnant mother and her doctor carefully considering the proper dosage necessary to maintain health without harming the child.

Pregnancy Presents Unique Prescription Rules

Determining what is appropriate for a pregnant mother has not been easy. Shifts in the metabolism of a pregnant woman are substantial compared to a woman who is not pregnant, and, therefore, require changes in treatment. To what extent change is necessary has become difficult to determine. Conducting scientific studies on a pregnant woman to make these determinations raises both ethical and legal issues. 

Better Information About Pregnant Women About the Impact of Medications
 
The Second Wave, a movement begun this spring in Washington and composed of 30 doctors, ethicists, scientists, and government officials, aims at providing better information regarding how drugs affect pregnant women. Only in the 90’s did studies begin to include women, and, as recent as twenty years ago, members of the medical community were still using the male body as their research models and adapting those results to women. A recent 2003 law made it possible for not only women, but in some cases, children to be included in these scientific studies.

Second Wave encourages doctors and agencies to gather data on pregnant women and eases any fears by emphasizing that a lot can be done on a less dramatic level. Blood samples can be drawn and analyses conducted on pregnant women who are already taking medication out of necessity. Unfortunately, chronic illnesses that many women have do not disappear during pregnancy. It is inevitable that pregnant women will be taking medication, and studies show that two thirds of women take up to five drugs over the course of their pregnancy and labor. It is these women that can be used for the study.

While the Second Wave program looks for pregnant women willing to participate, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is proposing to revamp its system for notifying pregnant women about adverse effects of drugs. Strikingly, only a dozen prescription drugs are approved for use by the FDA and most of these are all pregnancy related, leaving mothers with other common conditions in the dark as to effects of most medications on their unborn child.

Right now the FDA’s notification system consists of classifying drugs into one of five pregnancy-related categories, with A being the safest and X being the least necessary. Research on Category C drugs, which the FDA believes covers nearly 70% of all drugs, is much less conclusive in terms of safety for unborn children. Consequently, the FDA is moving towards eliminating these categories in favor of a system that more narrowly defines each individual drug and its effect on pregnant and nursing women. Below is a brief description of each of the five categories:

- Category A: Large number of human studies show no increased risk of birth defects when used by pregnant women. Examples include: Levothyroxine (thyroid hormone), B6, folic acid.

- Category B: Large number of animal studies show no increased risk of birth defects. No well done human studies have been conducted. Examples include: Zofran (antiemetic), amoxicillin (antibiotic).

- Category C: Animal studies suggest an increased risk and there are no large well-done human studies. Drug’s benefits may be worth the potential risk. Examples include: Zoloft, Paxil (antidepressants); Tamiflu (antiviral); Amitiza; any ACE inhibitors.

- Category D: Human studies show an increased risk of birth defects, but drug’s benefits may outweigh that risk. Examples include: tetracycline (antibiotic); Cytoxan (chemotherapy).

- Category X: Human studies show increased rates of birth defects and animal studies suggest an increased risk. The risk usually outweighs the benefits. Examples include: Accutane (acne treatment); Lipitor (cholesterol reducer).

If you or a loved one thinks you have been the victim of medical negligence because you have been wrongly prescribed medication during pregnancy or experienced adverse side effects as a result of being wrongly prescribed medication during pregnancy, you may be entitled to file a lawsuit seeking compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages and more. Contact a medical malpractice lawyer today for a free and confidential case evaluation.

The NYT reported that an official with the White House stated that President Obama told the American Medical Assocation (“AMA”) that he would support medical malpractice reform if the AMA supported the President’s health-care reform bill.  On June 15, President Obama addressed the AMA and made statements about medical malpractice reforms, suggesting he supports reforms, not caps on recoveries, but it still unclear what type of medical malpractice reform he supports.  In response, to that address, the American Association for Justice (“AAJ”), which works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others–even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations.
 
The following is a statement from American Association for Justice President Les Weisbrod regarding President Obama’s address to the American Medical Association:
 
“It’s clear America’s health care system is in crisis.  Over 40 million people are without health insurance and costs are skyrocketing.  President Obama is right that health care reform is needed now and patient safety should be the top priority.
 
“Empirically-based practice guidelines, developed by independent experts, is an idea we can support, as long as it does not lower quality or standards of care.  Instead, these guidelines should lead to greater patient safety.
 
“According to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors.  Eliminating these errors, not further hurting the victims of negligence, is where lawmakers should focus their attention.  By taking away the rights of people to hold wrongdoers accountable, the quality of health care will suffer tremendously.
 
“However, the notion that ‘defensive medicine’ is leading to higher health care costs is not supported by empirical data or academic literature.  Recent news reports, CBO and GAO analyses, and statements from administration officials have shown that physicians will over-test and over-treat purely for financial reasons, unrelated to liability concerns.
 
“Limiting the legal rights of injured patients will do nothing to lower health care costs or aid the uninsured.  We will work over the coming weeks and months to educate members of Congress and the administration on how to best protect victims of medical negligence.”
 
AAJ has developed a primer on medical negligence and the role of the civil justice system in the current health care debate.  The primer can be located at www.justice.org/medicalnegligence.  Information is also available on this site about New York medical malpractice.

Clearly one of the big agenda items for the Obama administration is health care reform.  Universal health care is definitely a good thing and long over due in this country.  But, for a consumer injured by medical negligence, what does health care reform mean? 

The White House had made clear that it would like to get a reform bill passed in Congress before the end of this session in August.  Whether the White House can achieve this is questionable and will required broad reaching support from various contingencies, including the American Medical Association (AMA).  So, what promises, if any, is the White House making to the AMA about medical malpractice reform, which is a big issue for the AMA (the website has Obama and his speech featured on its home page this morning), despite studies showing that medical malpractice reform has little or no impact on health care costs?

The New York Times reported earlier this week that insders at the Obama White House state that Obama has told the American Medical Association (”AMA”) that he supports malpractice reforms.  On June 15, 2009, Obama opened his drive for health care reform by speaking to the AMA.  During his speech, he stated:

“Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they’re constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits. I recognize that.

(APPLAUSE)

Don’t get too excited yet.

(APPLAUSE)

All right. Now, I understand some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue.

Now, you know, just hold onto your horses here, guys.

(LAUGHTER)

I want to be honest with you. I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards…

(BOOING)

… which I believe — I personally believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed.

But I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, how to let doctors focus on practicing medicine, how to encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. I want to work with the AMA so we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine that reinforces our current system and shift to a system where we are providing better care simply — rather than simply more treatment.

So this is going to be a priority for me. And I know, you know, based on your responses, it’s a priority for you.

(LAUGHTER)

And I look forward to working with you, and it’s going to be difficult. But all this stuff is going to be difficult. All of it’s going to be important.”  See Obama AMA Speech Transcript.

So far this is the only public statement by Obama about malpractice reform.  His views seem consistent with what his views were as a Senator, which is a good thing for consumers who are injured by medical negligence.  Medical groups, however, have already expressed disappointment in his statement but we hope that the White House will stand strong for consumer rights, especially in the face of considerable evidence from studies that show that malpractice reforms do not reduce the costs of healthcare in the United States.