Comments on: Big teaching-hospital cuts after Oregon high court ruling

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:37:15 +0000

Tom, the numbers are flawed.
The job cuts and tuition hikes are for the hospital alone, the budget number listed for the entire university…

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:14:57 +0000

This case has confused quite a few people here in Oregon about the difference between caps on non ecomonic damages and caps on all damages. Caps on non-econonic damages were narrowly defeated in a referendum a couple years ago. The medical and business communities have been advocating this change. The caps that OHSU enjoyed until now were very different. They capped all awards, including economic damages. This was clearly unfair and had to change. The only people supporting them were from OHSU, who had a great scam going. They enjoyed low malpractice premiums and were rarely sued. They also were known to take potshots at those of us who didn’t have their protections. Now they will have to start living in the real world. No sympathy from me, sorry. I am only discouraged by the fact that we are even less likely to get non-economic caps now because the press, and of course the lawyers, will mislead people about the difference between these caps and those caps.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:55:28 +0000

Walter: Most of the award goes to lifetime medical care. The judge should mandate its provision at the Oregon Health and Science University. If torts serve to compensate, deter, and teach others, what decision would achieve more?

By: mewh

mewh — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:21:07 +0000

A 2% budget spike requires a 10% tuition hike, job cuts of 1.5%, and capital cutbacks? I have to wonder whether these plans were in the works for other reasons and are conveniently being blamed on the malpractice ruling.

This is one case, I’m sure there will be others. The hospital won’t be able to afford them so they need to cut back care. The same thing happened in Philadelphia and malpractice, just try finding an OBGYN who will deliver babies.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:07:36 +0000

It’s worth noting, too, that there seems to be agreement that the hospital was negligent, and that the boy’s actual expected medical costs (i.e., not including pain and suffering) will be $12 million. So, unless one is prepared to let the boy die, that $12 million will have to come from somewhere. Presumably that would be private insurance (other working families), SCHIP/Medicaid (the taxpayers), or charity care (non-negligent hospitals). It’s not at all clear why it would be societally efficient to shift those costs onto one of those non-responsible payers and away from the responsible hospital, which is in the best position to police against its own negligent conduct.

In particular, note that if the hospital is liable for the boy’s medical costs, the taxpayers will be hit for only a fraction of that bill, since only a fraction of the hospital budget comes from tax revenue. If the hospital is allowed to shift the boy’s costs onto Medicaid, then the taxpayers will be liable for the entire sum.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:54:23 +0000

What the heck is wrong with Oregon’s Supreme Court? Every time the legislature or the voters craft legislation to limit the scope and power of the state (zoning and land use regulation, liability caps, among others) the Supreme Court strikes it down.