The American Medical News has an article summarizing the Florida Tort Reform Ballot Initiative Debate. (As an aside I am surprised there isn't more noise about this ballot initiative--maybe it is too soon). The article cites a poll by the Citizens for a Fair Share (which appears to be the physicians' political action committee) which seems to suggest that everyone is going to win...
Early polls show that Florida voters would approve a constitutional amendment put forward by physicians and two put forward by trial lawyers.
Proposed amendment In favor Limiting attorney fees 74% Taking away a medical license after
three judgments against a physician78% Allowing patients to see records
tied to adverse incidents75% Sources: Citizens for a Fair Share and Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc.
UPDATE: I didn't mean that this was a "win-win", but that the interest groups who put their initiatives on the ballot were likely to be successful in having their initiatives approved. What this means for "everyone" in the global sense is not clear. For example, I think we should seriously study the effects of the second initiative which removes a medical license after three judgments. This seems like it will cause a number of perverse incentives. I suspect that there ware well qualified physicians who practice very risky procedures that may have two judgments against them already. What if the choice comes down to stop performing that procedure (which is demanded by the patient) or being subject to potential loss of livelihood? What happens to social welfare in a case like this? Society is taking the choice out of the doctor's and patient's hands.
Recent Comments