• 02
  • December
    2011

It seems everyone has an opinion about what contributes to rising medical costs in the United States. Fingers get pointed at technology as one major driver. Doctors get targeted for ordering unnecessary tests and treatments and overprescribing. Big pharma gets tagged for overpricing products. Insurance companies are dismissed as meddlers that deliver little for the money they make.

The legal profession doesn't escape. Attorneys in Maryland and elsewhere know well the argument that is proffered about exorbitant damage claims from malpractice lawsuits and the supposed effect they have on healthcare costs. Reaction has ranged from capping damage awards to encouraging medical practitioners to be more up front when mistakes have been made and to offer compensation. No one seems too happy with those solutions.

There is another effort under way to address the lawsuit issue, and it's winning some praise. It's a new program initiated by a judge in New York City and which is beginning to spread on a test basis to other parts of the empire state. Observers say it could turn into a national model.

It works this way. When a malpractice suit is filed, it gets handed to a judge who then supervises the matter from start to finish. The jurist has the power to call all parties together to keep negotiations going and offer help in brokering terms.

As common sense as it sounds, this isn't how things usually happen now. Rather, the process can involve years of activity before it gets to trial. Any number of judges might be involved at any point. No one steers the process.

That changes with the new model. And the judge who came up with it says it seems to be attractive. He says when people are offered a process that might speed things up and still end with "significant sums of money," he's found they're often ready to talk. It doesn't work in every instance, but when indications are that a case can be settled promptly, the so-called judge-directed negotiation process may work.

The New York State Trial Lawyers Association seems to be on board with the idea. The group's president says that while the awards could be slightly less than what might be achieved under the years-long process, the speed of resolution and sense of closure is proving worth it for many plaintiffs.

It will be interesting to see how this idea develops.

Source: The Washington Post, "Judge devises model for resolving medical malpractice cases more quickly," Michelle Andrews, Nov. 21, 2011