There is a current debate in Wisconsin circulating around medical malpractice caps and insurance rates. The two sides of the argument are cut fairly cleanly down the middle: either avidly for or against caps. Those in favor of malpractice caps fear that health-care costs are going to soar beyond reason due to incredible losses for health insurance companies in court settlements; those against the caps realize that caps prevent malpractice victims from recieving justified compensation, causing further hardship for the injured. Amitabh Chandra, a Harvard University economist studying the malpractice issue, has a more detailed argument against medical malpractice caps. According the Chandra, “the relationship between [malpractice payments and liability insurance rates] that people have argued is tight is actually very week.”
In a study Chandra ran last year, five states where malpractice payments increased 20% in the 1990’s showed a decrease of 2% in liability insurance rates. According to Chandra, the reason that Wisconsin’s liability insurance rates fell 40% while malpractice payments remained flat is because insurance companies use many factors to set rates: these multiple factors include things like underpriced premiums during harsh competition which leads to raised rates, as Chandra believes is the case for Wisconsin. Chandra called the doctors’ argument that liability insurance rates become unbearable without caps “fundamentally dishonest”.
If you are suffering from medical malpractice and have concerns about medical malpractice caps, feel free to contact a well informed personal injury lawyer, such as Jim S. Adler and Associates in Houston, Texas.
