Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: More questions than answers

Friday, June 7, 2002 | 3:13 a.m.

As we hear all sides of the medical insurance problems facing our doctors, there appears to be fewer answers that people agree are fair or reasonable. Too many simple answers for complex problems only muddy the conversations of sincere people seeking honest answers.

Looking backward we can see the mistakes that got us into this fix. Promises of a national insurance outfit, St. Paul Cos., and its purchase of an insurance system already successful started us on the downhill slide into our present day problems. As long as the economy was great, and St. Paul was profiting from other investments, everything went along smoothly. Then came the stock market decline, and the medical malpractice insurance business became an unnecessary burden. This encouraged the company to fold its tent and leave Nevada and some other states that are now holding bags of misery.

We all know that doctors in some special areas of practice have been pushed over the financial brink by the high demands for adequate medical malpractice insurance. So the insurance companies point to a few cases of outrageous jury awards to patients who have been injured by their physicians. Simple answer is to put a cap on the amount of money the patient can be awarded for pain and suffering. The figure of $250,000 has a nice ring to it because that's the amount limited in some other states.

I don't know how pain and suffering can be measured in the terms of dollars and cents. Does the patient badly burned in an operating room accident suddenly get over the pain when handed $250,000, or will it remain with him for life? How about the person with a cancerous kidney that must be removed but the healthy one is removed by mistake? Does the person blinded have a different kind of pain than the person who lost his or her legs?

Some observers of juries believe that they give high awards in the millions of dollars to make certain that the patient gets enough to compensate for their losses and pains. They have come to believe that unless they make these big awards too much will be taken by the lawyers and not enough remains with patient. Now some people are suggesting a set sliding scale to determine just how much the lawyer will receive and how much will stay with the patient. That's the way many company health programs dictate the amount a physician will be paid for specific surgeries.

These are but a few of the problems which must be settled with all participants in the same room before the governor calls a special session. There has to be give and take on the part of insurance companies, lawyers, doctors and legislators. Oh yes, all of them should be thinking of the most important person involved, and that is the patient. Therefore, a large number of consumers, of all ages, must also have their say in any conference designed to settle the medical malpractice problems of the Silver State.

Allow me to suggest that once a fair decision has been made and a workable solution becomes law, that history not be repeated. If the resulting medical malpractice insurance system works, then don't try to fix it or sell it.

Before leaving this subject allow me to give our readers a little more food for thought. If we are going to put a cap on the amount a doctor must pay for pain and suffering he caused, will the same cap apply in other cases? What about a mechanic who accidentally drops a heavy wrench on the foot of a customer? Will the mechanic and his company also be protected by the same cap? I was just wondering.