Alex Winslow
The False Choice: Doctors or Accountability
Texas voters were given a false choice in 2003: lose their doctors or lose access to their courts. As Texans were going to the polls to vote on an amendment to the state constitution known as Proposition 12, which placed severe and arbitrary restrictions that make it nearly impossible for those devastated by medical negligence to seek justice through our courts, they were inundated by an insurance industry-funded onslaught of slick advertising designed to scare them into thinking that their health care system would collapse if they didn’t give up their constitutional right to seek justice in our courts.
In a new report entitled The False Choice: Doctors or Accountability, Texas Watch shows how we do not have to settle for this false choice. We can – and should – have both strong legal protections, as well as access to quality, affordable health care. Citizens should not be forced to choose between the courts, our most important and effective forum for ensuring accountability, and a quality health care system.
As is often the case in political campaigns, however, the facts gave way to overblown assertions about a so-called medical liability “crisis” that simply did not exist. In fact, a landmark study by legal scholars from three major universities found that the number of large medical liability payments (over $25,000) in Texas were stable between 1991 and 2002 while the number of small claims dropped significantly. Additionally, the number of claims per 100 Texas doctors fell 28.12% (from 6.4 to 4.6) between 1990 and 2002.[1]
As a result of the heated rhetoric and efforts to keep turnout low by manipulating the election date and ballot language, [2] Texas voters issued a split decision (51.13%-48.86%),[3] narrowly stripping away the right to legal accountability through our courts.
Patients were told to expect significant improvements in health care across the state, as well as dramatically lower medical liability insurance premiums for their family doctors.
Well, where are we today? The sad reality is that little has changed to improve health care for those who most need it and doctors continue to pay too much for their liability insurance coverage. Underserved areas remain underserved and insurance profits continue to rise. What has changed is that patients are less safe and the leveling foundation of our courts has crumbled.
To read Texas Watch’s full report, click here
Notes
[1] Bernard S. Black, Charles M. Silver, David A. Hyman and William M. Sage, Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas, 1988-2002, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 30; COLUMBIA LAW & ECON RESEARCH PAPER NO. 270; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. LE05-002, March 2005. See http://ssrn.com/abstract=678601.
[2] Mimi Swartz, Hurt? Injured? Need a Lawyer? Too Bad!, TEXAS MONTHLY, November 2005.
[3] Proposition 12 passed by a margin of 51.13% in favor to 48.86% against. Out of 1,470,443 ballots cast, Proposition 12 prevailed by a margin of just 33,349 votes. The average margin of victory for measures on the 2003 Texas Constitutional Amendment ballot was 64.95%. See http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe.
Posted at 9:54 AM, Feb 07, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
