The Washington Post reports that Maryland is considering a special legislative session to deal with soaring medical insurance costs.
Like thousands of other doctors across Maryland, Brown, a Rockville general surgeon, faces a steep increase in his premiums -- and no guarantee that state leaders will intervene to help out.
For many Maryland doctors, the hit could be even steeper. Last year, Brown paid $37,000 to insure his modest-size solo practice. Next year's premiums will be $52,000 -- at least a quarter of which is due tomorrow.
There is a stopgap solution proposed by the state's legislative leaders:
Their talks focused on the creation of a temporary state fund that would enable malpractice insurers to hold down their rates for several years. Ehrlich, Busch and Miller have voiced support for the fund, but many details -- including how to pay for it -- remain unresolved.
Miller and Busch would like to impose a 2 percent premium tax on HMOs and other managed-care organizations. Analysts say that measure would yield about $80 million a year, enough to effectively freeze malpractice premiums at this year's levels.
Aside from short-term relief, other issues stand in the way of a special session. Ehrlich has said he will support a reinsurance fund only if lawmakers adopt reforms to the legal system at the same time. Insurance companies blame lawyers for escalating malpractice payouts. Miller has been cool to many of the ideas floated by Ehrlich, which include curbs on awards in malpractice cases and limits on lawyers' fees.
Christine Neto of Salisbury is having similar thoughts. Her rates are high because of the risks that come with her specialty, obstetrics-gynecology. Neto said her bill for the coming year is $106,000 -- and she is "anxiously" waiting to see whether she will get some help from the General Assembly. "Right now, I don't have the money to pay the premiums," she said.
Neto said she moved to Maryland years ago to escape high premiums in New York. Now she is considering a move to Virginia, where insurance rates are generally lower. But she said she would do so reluctantly.
"You can't just keep running from state to state. . . . I hope the legislators are listening," she said.
This is one of those issues that you never want to have to deal with in politics. Doctors, especially those who have never been sued (or sued successfully), should not have to pay these exorbitant premiums. Nor should someone who goes through their level of education and does such an important job ever worry about money. What then, about the victims of medical malpractice? Is it enough to give them what they would have made at their jobs before a debilitating and painful injury? "Sorry, I know you had other plans for life. Here's what you would have made anyway, and nothing more."
Cutting attorney's fees, a popular solution, is certainly not the answer. The corporate firms that defend doctors and hospitals know that they have to pay the best salaries in the industry (or maybe any industry) to attract the very best students from the very best law schools. I have seen friends taken to expensive meals, sailing, to sporting events, and given incredible starting bonuses. Lawyers who represent patients, on the other hand, work on contingency (a percentage of the final settlement or jury award). They spend an incredible amount on the front end of the case (often overlooked, this evaluation by a plantiff's attorney weeds out most meritless cases). Often, it is years before a patient's lawyer sees a nickel for their work. Just as no fool would bill 2400 hours of document production for less than six figures, any attempt to reduce attorney's fees would squeeze many of them out of that area of practice.
One of the great things about America, with it's federal system of government, is that it allows the states to be laboratories for great ideas. There is no better example of this than Wisconsin and welfare reform, which showed the rest of the nation how it could be done. Hopefully Maryland will find something that works for the rest of us.