Just reforms make sense- joint and several usually has the effect of the doc with coverage paying for the one that doesnt. Caps make sense since you are using money, an objective notion to compensate a subjective idea. You just cant weigh pain. The cap is only for this cause of action. The other causes of action can be measured and should be left alone. I like loser pays. If you need insurance to drive a car it should be required for a doc to have hospital priveleges. Makes sense and great for the hospital and vicarious exposure. Change the forum for medmal- this could save 30% of the total medmal cost. Skip the courts, the hollywood potential and arbitrate.
How about looking up the definition of peer. Docs dont get them by any dictionary. Having skeeter deciding if my insured should have used a Whipple instead of a roux en y nissan fundoplication is not equal nor fair and does not make sense. Who is ok with this other than the plaintiff bar. An expert affidavit makes sense. How about the plaintiff getting more than 40% of the total cost of a case. Arbitration can do this. The arguments re constitutional rights is BS for the start. Start with the peer definition and this leads to an arbitration panel of physicians selected by each side. One expert apiece with x- exam. Maybe structure the result. Come on guys this is simple. The agendas of the plaintiff bar is the thumb in the way of the hammer. Do they look to make their clients whole or pursue lotto numbers at the expense of many.

It would be great if someone like Ted Frank wrote a paper reconciling the Canadian and Florida insurance rates.

That’s my “point.” As it pertains to all of the typical tort reform suggestions — caps, joint and several, fee limits, punitives, etc — there really isn’t much difference between Canada and Florida, yet the same neurosurgeon in Florida pays ~10x for worse coverage (note that the Canadians have largely unlimited coverage, whereas most American coverage stops around $1-1.5m).

Why is that? I think one place to start is how Canadian follows the socialist principle of spreading risk as widely as possible, and uses a de facto single-payer system that all physicians join, with minimal disparity between the rates they pay.

My “point” is that, despite endless promises from insurance companies, drastic tort reform in Florida brought almost no relief to physicians. I suggest that’s because the root cause of these fees is something other than noneconomic damages, or joint and several liability, or punitives, etc. You’re free to argue the opposite, in spite of the Canada/Florida data.

What is your point? Unless you think that medical malpractice insurers are somehow knocking down 90% profit margins in Florida, neurosurgeons in Florida are committing ten times the malpractice of their Canadian peers or else the changes in Florida law that you refer to are minimal in their impact.

My guess would be that the use of judges to try cases combined with the endless discovery process of American tort cases play much more of a role than loser pays in this difference, but this incredible spread clearly calls out for a serious study by individuals without an ax to grind in this matter.

They drank the tort reform kool-aid and got nothing for it, as premiums are still that high. Compounding the injustice, Florida permits doctors to be uninsured, which rewards irresponsible doctors and punishes blameless patients.