I love stop-action photography when it's done well, and Gravity is done very well.
There have been a number of studies that show medical malpractice claims could be reduced if doctors and hospitals were more honest, and simply admitted errors and apologized to patients when they occur. One of the latest was reported inUSAToday. Perhaps if enough of these studies are published doctors will take the hint. Here are excerpts from the article:
Ask doctors what concerns them most, and chances are they'll say, "medical malpractice." A recent New England Journal of Medicine study found that 75% of doctors who practice psychiatry, pediatrics or family medicine will be sued during their career. Neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons and obstetricians have it worse, as virtually all of them will be sued before they finish practicing medicine.
The medical malpractice debate often pits physicians — who say the threat of lawsuits pushes them to order expensive, unnecessary tests — against lawyers who believe that lawsuits are needed to hold doctors accountable.
How can physicians avoid the courtroom? If an error was made, many insurers advise physicians not to talk to patients. That's wrong. Physicians should disclose their mistake, apologize and, when appropriate and through mutual agreement, compensate injured patients.
For more than a decade, the University of Michigan Health System has used such a program, and its incidence of malpractice claims has since dropped 36%.
This approach should be spread nationwide. Actually, in 2005, then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama co-sponsored the National MEDiC Act, which among other things would have implemented apology laws throughout the U.S. Although the measure never became law, at least 36 states have passed legislation protecting apologies from being used against doctors in court.
Doctors also must create and maintain open lines of communication with patients, which is critical to preventing lawsuits in the first place. Doctors have to better explain, and patients better understand, that not all adverse outcomes are due to physician errors. Although the Institute of Medicine's 1999 seminal report, "To Err is Human," concluded that medical errors caused up to 100,000 patient deaths a year, 90% of those deaths were attributed to systemwide procedural failures at medical institutions.
There's no panacea for eliminating mistakes, but a starting point is clearly communication. Better doctor-patient exchanges improve medicine, and when patients and their families are kept in the loop, they also are less likely to pursue a lawsuit. And, then, if errors are made, doctors should apologize and work with the patient and, when necessary, their lawyer, to find a compromise.
Transparency is the key to an open, trusting and healthy doctor-patient relationship.
The managing editor of the Henderson (TX) Daily News wrote in commentary, "Texas may not have been the first state to welcome tort reforms but I can't imagine anyone embracing it with such wild enthusiasm as Texans over the past 20 years or so." He adds that in his failed presidential campaign, Gov. Rick Perry "perpetuated the myth that implementing Texas-style tort reforms would go a long way toward curing what's wrong with the healthcare system." Noting that malpractice insurance premiums dropped after the state enacted curbs on non-economic damages awards, the author notes that the state's post-enactment doctor-population ratio fell to nearly the bottom of the states. In fact, he says, Texans "would be hard pressed to claim any direct benefit -- except, that is, for Texans who are doctors. Medical liability premiums have declined by nearly 30 percent since tort reforms were enacted."
From the American Association for Justice press release.
I just wrote last week about the ridiculous situation in Texas regarding homeowners insurance policies and rates. And now, in a relentless effort to make Texas more "business-friendly" by ensuring that Texans continue to pay the highest premiums in the country, our Insurance Commissioner has approved another rate increase by Farmers. This increase is 10%. Apparently the almost 4% increase by Farmers in March of 2011 was not "business-friendly" enough for the company.
It could be worse though. In its initial filing Farmers actually said an increase of 52% could be justified, but the company was willing to settle for only 10%. What a racket!
I wrote last month about the Texas Supreme Court, and the fact that studies have revealed it to be business-friendly. Now the consumer group Texas Watch has issued a lengthy report detailing this bias by the Court in favor of businesses over consumers. Here are the details from Texas Watch:
The Texas Supreme Court has a long history of favoring corporate defendants over families and small businesses, according to a decade-long review of the Court’s decision making by Court Watch, a project of the non-profit Texas Watch Foundation.
Court Watch reviewed the 624 cases involving consumers decided by the Court between 2000 and 2010. The report, “Thumbs on the Scale: A Retrospective of the Texas Supreme Court, 2000-2010,”finds that the state’s high court for civil matters “has marched in lock-step to consistently and overwhelmingly reward corporate defendants and the government at the expense of Texas families.”
“The Texas Supreme Court is an activist, results-oriented body that over the last 10 years has developed into a safe haven for corporate defendants at the expense of individuals, families, and small business owners,” said Alex Winslow, director of Court Watch. “The statistics speak for themselves. The court’s pro-defendant ideology can not be disputed.”
Who's on First — political edition:
I've written recently about the sorry state of homeowners insurance in Texas. With laws favoring the insurance companies and with an insurance department that consistently sides with the carriers, homeowners don't get much for their money — despite the fact we always rank number one or number two for highest homeowner rates in the country.
The consumer group Texas Watch has been keeping an eye on recent insurance hearings, and has written about it:
So, just what is a junk insurance policy? Sen. Leticia Van de Putte said she’s been hearing from constituents who are fed up with junk policies with what she called “luscious exclusions” and “skyrocketing” deductibles. She asked Insurance Commissioner Eleanor Kitzman about this at a recent committee hearing. Kitzman was unaware of the problem.
Well, we are aware of the problem. So, we sent Sen. Van de Putte a letter outlining the problem (and we sent a copy to Commissioner Kitzman too).
Cornell University has a Web page with links to employment laws in each state. Very handy.
The high cost of fixing damaged cars and trucks in Texas has pushed up the price of auto insurance in the state to 11th highest in the nation, according to a new study analyzing premiums across the country.
The study by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows that the price of collision coverage — the portion of an insurance policy that pays to repair damage after an accident — has been climbing in Texas and now ranks as the fifth highest among the states.
By contrast, the amount paid for liability coverage — which has been a target for advocates of limiting lawsuits — ranks 20th among the states.
Overall, Texas drivers paid an average premium of $1,022 a year for insurance, well above the national average of $901. Louisiana drivers were charged the highest premiums in the country, an average $1,270 a year. A dozen states have premiums above $1,000. Rates in the study were based on 2009 data, the most recent nationwide figures available.
Insurance industry spokesman Mark Hanna attributed the high cost of collision coverage to the large percentage of uninsured motorists in the state, as well as increased charges by auto body shops.
The average auto insurance premium in Texas has been creeping up in recent years. It once was ranked near the middle of the pack among the states — unlike the rates for homeowners insurance, which have been among the highest in the country for several years.
“We are starting to see in auto insurance rates what we have seen in homeowners rates for a long time — continuous increases,” said Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a consumer group that tracks insurance issues in the state.
He added that state officials should be wary of the price increases. “I don’t know of any factors that have changed to justify the kind of upward trend we’re seeing,” Winslow said.
Winslow also said the relatively lower cost of liability protection calls into question the arguments that policyholders suing insurers are the driving force behind increasing premiums.
A study by The Dallas Morning News last fall showed that many drivers in the Dallas area saw their insurance rates jump by an average of 8 percent during 2011. Industry representatives attributed the higher premiums to increased medical costs and new minimum limits for liability coverage in Texas.
AT A GLANCE: Factors that affect auto insurance premiums
Driving record and claims history: A good driving record and no at-fault accidents reduces premiums.
Age and, for younger drivers, marital status: Male drivers younger than 25 and unmarried women younger 21 pay the highest rates, while drivers over 50 may get discounts.
Where the car is kept: Rates are higher in urban areas than rural areas because drivers in urban areas have more accidents and auto thefts.
Type of car: Collision and comprehensive rates are higher for luxury, high-performance and sports cars.
Car’s primary use: Rates for cars driven solely for pleasure are lower than rates for cars driven to and from work or used for business.
Credit score: Most companies use the driver’s credit score to decide whether to sell a policy and what to charge, with a better credit score bringing lower rates.
Whether the driver lacked insurance: Companies may charge more if the driver was uninsured in Texas for more than 30 days in the year before the driver applied for coverage.
Discounts that reduce the cost of auto insurance:
Defensive driving courses.
Driver education classes for young drivers.
Students with good grades.
Parent or family whose young driver is away at school without a car.
Two or more cars on one policy.
Policy renewal with good driving record and no at-fault claims.
Concurrent homeowners policy.
Vehicle options such as anti-lock brakes and anti-theft devices.
This guest post is from the New Jersey car accident law firm of Console & Hollawell. While the article specifically addresses the auto/pedestrian problem in New Jersey, the principles are the same for Texas.
There has always been a troubled relationship between New Jersey motorists and pedestrians. New Jersey is the fifth most dangerous state in the U.S. for pedestrians according to recent statistics. It seems as if there is a constant struggle as to who should be doing what; drivers are unclear when they have to stop for pedestrians and pedestrians just assume they can cross the street wherever and whenever they want. Despite the law being abundantly clear, pedestrians are still getting hit by cars every year—pedestrian deaths account for 25 percent of all traffic-related deaths in the state.
The law states that drivers must yield to pedestrians when they are in a crosswalk and in turn pedestrians need to utilize the crosswalks. Then there is the grey area—someone walks out to cross the street and is not at a crosswalk, technically a car has the right of way in this situation, but in most cases the car will stop anyways. This can create very dangerous situation, if the car has to stop short, another vehicle behind them may hit them, or they may not be able to stop in time and could hit the pedestrian.
It angers many, but in the instance that a car hits a pedestrian who wasn’t in a crosswalk, there is a good chance that driver will not be facing charges from the police. A perfect example of this is the accident that occurred on January 21 in Hazlet, New Jersey. A 17-year-old man was hit by a car and was killed while attempting to cross Route 36, a busy road.
According to a report from the Asbury Park Press, Traffic Safety Lt. Stephen Schmidt explained that the young man crossed just before the intersection and not in a crosswalk.
“He had just crossed the highway at Stone Road near the intersection,” he explained. “The car had the right of way.”
Despite the fact that the boy was killed, the police have not filed charges against the driver. The case is still under investigation. This is a perfect example of the gray area when it comes to pedestrians and motorists sharing the road. If pedestrians are going to ignore crosswalks and motorists are not going to stop when someone crosses outside of one, how will New Jersey ever reduce the rate of these accidents?
New Jersey car accident lawyer Richard Console believes that everyone needs to work together to curb tragic accidents like this.
“Without cooperation from both motorists and pedestrians nothing will change,” Console said. “The laws are there to protect everyone from these types of accidents, but if they aren’t being followed and enforced there will be no improvement.”
The Web site NeverLikedItAnyway is a clever one. It's basically a resale site, where people list items of jewelry or clothing, among other things, and visitors can buy those items directly from the sellers. The clever part is that the items are gifts from former spouses or significant others. After the relationship breaks up, the sellers put up funny little notes about why they decided to sell the products. Here's one example:
Adrienne Vittadini Black Leather “Jeff” Boot Size 8.5 Back zip boot Low heel New in the box
The Story:
His name was Jeff. He turned into a heel. Cannot wear the boot knowing that it's name is Jeff... although every step I take if I did keep them would make me feel like I was stepping on his head.... hmmmm.... maybe I could keep them. No. Someone else should stomp him. Please take them off my hands.
Newsday/Tribune Media Services reported, "Only three pickup trucks -- the Ford F-150, Toyota Tundra and Honda Ridgeline -- have been named Top Safety Picks for 2012 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)." According to the IIHS, "The award recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, rollover and rear crashes based on ratings in Institute evaluations."
From the American Association for Justice press release.
The ABA Journal reported that the Supreme Court "has ruled that consumers who received the Aspire Visa credit card are bound by a mandatory arbitration provision in their applications." Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the case, CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only dissenter. The class-action lawsuit under the Credit Repair Organizations Act featured plaintiffs who claimed they were promised $300 in available credit for a low-rate Aspire Visa card, but were charged $257 in fees during the first year, noting that the Act requires credit repair organizations to tell consumers, "You have the right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act." Gary Paul, president of the American Association for Justice, "criticized the decision in a press release." The AAJ release stated, "With this ruling, the US Supreme Court has given corporations a way to escape accountability by forcing consumers into a rigged and biased forced arbitration process, even when Congress expressly provides a remedy in a court of law."
The Los Angeles Times adds that although the 1996 law specifically gave customers the right to sue any firm in violation, the Supreme Court "ruled Tuesday that credit repair companies could block such lawsuits and instead force disgruntled customers into binding arbitration if they had agreed to such a provision in the fine print of their agreements." The Times observes that the decision "is another in a string of high court rulings in recent years that have backed an arbitration clause over a customer's right to file a lawsuit," and notes that the trend "alarms some consumer advocates, who complained that arbitration proceedings typically favor companies and remove the strong deterrent of class-action lawsuits."
The AP reported that the 9th Circuit had interpreted the 1996 law's provision giving consumers a right to sue as being "a right to go to court, rather than be forced to submit to arbitration," although two other federal appellate courts had ruled otherwise. Reuters and the Wall Street Journal /Dow Jones also reported the story.
Some major credit cards are dropping arbitration. Even as the Supreme Court was overruling a 9th Circuit decision that the Credit Repair Organizations Act barred mandatory binding arbitration, CreditCards.com reports that some of the nation's largest credit card companies, including Chase, Bank of America and Capital One, "have announced that they are dropping the arbitration requirement from their consumer agreements or will not enforce it." The article also noted that the Minnesota attorney-general had sued a major arbitration firm for deceptive practices, and that the American Arbitration Association had called for reforms in mandatory arbitration.
From the American Association for Justice press release.
Texas has long had one of the weakest insurance departments in the nation — a department controlled by the insurance industry, and not at all helpful to consumers who have complaints. But now there is a new head of the department, and we can at least hope for improvement. However, so far there does not appear to be much reason to expect a shift from protecting insurance companies to protecting insurance consumers. The Dallas Morning News ran a profile of Eleanor Kitzman. Here are excerpts:
Five months on the job as Texas’ top insurance regulator, Houston native and former insurance executive Eleanor Kitzman is under close scrutiny by consumer groups, lawmakers and insurers as she deals with the first major rate filings of her tenure.
As head of the agency that regulates the state’s multibillion-dollar insurance industry, Kitzman will make decisions that directly affect the pocketbooks of most Texans — those who buy auto, home, health or other types of insurance — as well as the business fortunes of hundreds of insurers.
Her lengthy background in the industry — including the auto insurance business she started in South Carolina — gives her a leg up in overseeing the market, but also makes some consumer groups skeptical about whether she will hold companies accountable for anti-consumer practices.
“I have a different agenda than I did when I was running my insurance business or working as an attorney for insurance companies,” Kitzman said in a recent interview. “I know how the business works, so I know what insurance companies can do.”
Kitzman insisted her background and knowledge of insurance put her in position to “better serve consumers in every way.” But, she added, “having a robust, competitive market is very good for consumers.” She added: “I can also recognize gratuitous whining [by insurers] when I see it.” But consumer advocates fear she’s already shown her tendency to favor insurers.
In her first major decision last fall, Kitzman approved a rate plan by the state’s largest insurer, State Farm, that will begin switching many of the company’s homeowner policies to a higher deductible. Policyholders will have to shoulder a greater share of their property losses — while paying slightly higher rates. The overall rate increase was only 2 percent in North Texas, but Kitzman acknowledged to a Senate committee that State Farm customers will be getting less coverage for their money because of the new deductible.
A leading consumer group, Texas Watch, accused her of giving in to the “biggest bully” in the Texas insurance market. “This was Commissioner Kitzman’s first big test, and she failed miserably,” said the group’s Alex Winslow. “Insurance companies and their lobbyists are crowing over the decision.”
Here's a rule that's long overdue — make doctors disclose the payments they receive from drug companies and medical device manufacturers. Knowing that your doctor has just accepted a pile of money from a hip implant company right before he says you need a hip implant might cause you to get a second opinion.
The details of this story were published by the New York Times. Here are the opening paragraphs:
To head off medical conflicts of interest, the Obama administration is poised to require drug companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment.
Many researchers have found evidence that such payments can influence doctors’ treatment decisions and contribute to higher costs by encouraging the use of more expensive drugs and medical devices.
Consumer advocates and members of Congress say patients may benefit from the new standards, being issued by the government under the new health care law. Officials said the disclosures increased the likelihood that doctors would make decisions in the best interests of patients, without regard to the doctors’ financial interests.
Large numbers of doctors receive payments from drug and device companies every year — sometimes into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars — in exchange for providing advice and giving lectures. Analyses by The New York Times and others have found that about a quarter of doctors take cash payments from drug or device makers and that nearly two-thirds accept routine gifts of food, including lunch for staff members and dinner for themselves.
The Times has found that doctors who take money from drug makers often practice medicine differently from those who do not and that they are more willing to prescribe drugs in risky and unapproved ways, such as prescribing powerful antipsychotic medicines for children.
Under the new standards, if a company has just one product covered by Medicare or Medicaid, it will have to disclose all its payments to doctors other than its own employees. The federal government will post the payment data on a Web site where it will be available to the public.
How many of you are there? No, not how many readers of this blog, but how many of YOU? How many people in the United States have your name? I can tell you there are 394 guys named Robert Kraft, and to me that's 393 too many. I wish I were like my friend Conrad Saam. He swears he is the only person in the world with that name, because the last one died in Australia 100 years ago. So if you do a Google search for Conrad Saam, it's him.
I have to share the spotlight with the owner of the New England Patriots, a prominent professor of religion, a musician, and 390 other fellows.
So check it out, and find out how many of you there are. Just go to HowManyOfMe.
In continuing coverage, ABC News reports on its website, "A new report released Friday by the inspector general of the US Department of Health and Human Services found that more than 80 percent of hospital errors go unreported by hospital employees." The new "report, which looked at data from hospitalized Medicare patients, also found that most hospitals where errors were reported rarely changed their policies and practices to prevent repeat errors, saying the event did not reveal any 'systemic quality problems.'"
The National Journal reported, "In correspondence published alongside the report, former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Dr. Donald Berwick said Medicare officials plan to develop a list of reportable events to help make it clear what hospital employees need to look out for."
From the American Association for Justice news release.
This guest post is from the New Jersey car accident lawyer firm of Console and Hollowell.
A Center for Disease Control and Prevention report showed just how often drivers are taking their lives and the lives of others in their hands by driving while under the influence of alcohol. The report shows that in 2010, legally drunk persons got behind the wheel 120,000,000 times. At this point, this is way more than a problem — it is an epidemic.
Far too often people are putting their own lives and the lives of everyone on the road in danger. The report also showed that some groups are more apt to drink and drive than others. Four out of five times the drunk driver was male. Men ages 21 to 34 were responsible for 32 percent of all episodes involving drunk driving.
Alcohol can severely impair someone. Even when below the legal limit the effects of alcohol are still present. These effects include:
(Adapted from the CDC)
The best ways to combat the drunk driving epidemic is for police to continue to enforce (and possibly even increase enforcement of) drunk driving laws, strictly enforce the drinking age, and possibly utilize ignition interlocks that prevent drivers who have previous DUI convictions from operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
Drunk driving is dangerous for everyone and every year countless people die as a result.
If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident caused by a drunk driver, contact a New Jersey car accident lawyer today to find out your legal rights and options.
I've written many times about the ridiculous and unfair system in Texas where the insurance industry controls the regulatory department that sets the rules for insurance rates. The not-so-unexpected results of such a system include Texas leading the nation in homeowner insurance rates year after year. And even worse, the homeowner policies being written today offer far less coverage than past policies. There are more exclusions in current policies than ever before. Here are excerpts from a recent article in the Dallas Morning News about homeowner rates.
Texas homeowners paid the most expensive insurance premiums in the country for the second year in a row, although average premiums in the state have not been increasing as sharply as in other states, according to new figures from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
The average annual cost of the most commonly sold policy in Texas was $1,511, which is well above the national average of $880 and about $50 more than in the state with the second-highest rates, Florida. Eight states had average premiums above $1,000 a year, and some of those have seen dramatic increases in recent years.
Consumer groups warned that Texas homeowners should not expect any relief soon, while industry representatives noted that premiums in the state are not rising as fast as in other states.
“For as long as anyone can remember, Texas has had among the highest insurance rates in the nation,” said Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a consumer group active in insurance issues.
“The flip side is that coverage for most homeowners is getting slashed while their rates keep going up. With higher deductibles, expanded exclusions and a growing number of junk policies, Texas policyholders are being forced to pay more for less,” he said. “It’s like being forced to pay Cadillac prices and getting stuck with a clunker.”
Winslow said the situation would not improve until the Legislature beefs up laws regulating insurers and the commissioner of insurance “gets tough” with companies.
Mark Hanna of the Insurance Council of Texas said the premiums listed in the study reflect how catastrophic weather events can affect homeowner rates. He noted that several states with higher premiums were along the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast or in areas that experience a large number of destructive storms.
It is difficult to comprehend the profound impact on millions of people that a 16-minute speech delivered almost 50 years ago has had. We need to listen to this speech more often than once per year. Here are links to the text and to the audio. Please take a few minutes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to refresh your memory.