Wednesday, March 3, 2004 | 8:45 a.m.
Two years ago the Legislature approved a cap of $350,000 on the award a victim of medical malpractice can receive from a jury for pain and suffering. The hope was that insurance companies would begin lowering the premiums charged to doctors for medical malpractice coverage. The increases, however, as they have for the past several years, are still coming at a crisis-causing pace.
Unfortunately, the increases in premiums are about all that can be known with certainty when it comes to this issue. Medical malpractice in Nevada is a major problem but one whose scope is largely unknown and therefore subject to widely varying cause-and-effect theories. From the doctors' perspective, the rising rates are motivating many of them to limit their practices by avoiding high-risk patients. They also say many of their colleagues are retiring or leaving the state. But none of this can be verified as no one is really keeping track.
The collective voice of patients is heard expressing fear that the number of medical specialists such as OB/GYNs is diminishing so rapidly as to cause alarm. Anecdotal evidence would seem to support this. But a report last year by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that 28 of 30 OB/GYN offices randomly called in Clark County were accepting new patients, with appointments available in three weeks or less. No one can offer even educated guesses as to how many patients have been turned away by doctors and hospitals because of the increasing premiums.
Another big unknown is how Assembly Bill 1, the Legislature's medical malpractice reform bill, has affected jury awards. What is known is that the average award for 2002 was $317,027, down from $372,728 in 2001. The 2003 figures are not in yet, but that isn't stopping a group of doctors from pushing an initiative campaign that would remove the cap's exceptions (for gross malpractice and "exceptional circumstances") from AB 1. For all anyone knows, AB 1 might be working to bring down jury awards even more. Clearly, better statistical information needs to be compiled to competently assess the scope of the medical malpractice issue in Nevada.
Even more clear to us is the need for a spotlight to be aimed directly at insurance companies. After all, they're the ones who started all of this by suddenly raising their rates. Were high jury awards really the reason? What role did their plummeting investment returns play? Insurance companies are state regulated, but not at the same level as utilities. If too many tough questions come their way, they can just leave the state and regulators know this would exacerbate the problem. With stronger regulation, perhaps backed up by federal laws that lessen their leverage, insurance companies might be at the table during discussions on how to ease the crisis. Vowing, as they are, to keep their rates high until AB 1 weathers a court challenge, they are not even in the room.
archive
