The Baltimore Sun reports today the medical malpractice rates continue to fall. My favorite line from the article: “Since that deal was struck, claims payouts have fallen sharply, sparking debate over whether a malpractice crisis ever existed.” Hmmm, I hadn’t thought about that.
I’m preparing for trial on Monday and I don’t want to completely flush out this issue but this article made me think of something. If we are going to offer state subsidies to doctors for their malpractice insurance – which I don’t necessarily oppose but I’m not sure I believe are necessary – couldn’t we make financial necessity a variable in the equation? Could we make a rule that a doctor make less than $300,000 a year to be eligible for a subsidy? Would MedChi or Medical Mutual oppose this? If so, on what basis?
I have no problem with doctors making a boatload of money. By all means. They should. But if you are making a half million a year, should you be able to claim that the state should subsidize or, far worse, that victims of medical malpractice should be under compensated to subsidize your business expenses?