Category Archives: MICRA

SFMS Spotlights Advocacy and Community Health Efforts at General Meeting

A wonderful time was had by all at the SFMS General Meeting on September 12 at the Golden Gate Yacht Club. With warm enthusiasm, SFMS President George Fouras, MD welcomed 60 residents and physicians—a quarter of which are first-time attendees!—to the annual event. Featured speaker CMA President James Hinsdale, MD delivered an informative presentation about CMA’s legislative efforts to preserve MICRA, prevent further reimbursement cuts from Medicare and Medi-Cal, and maintain the economic viability of physicians.

Event participants appreciated the chance to exchange new knowledge, gain insights into organized medicine, and to foster networking. Members expressed positive feedback and interest in becoming actively involved in future events, including the September 27th Career Fair, October 28th SFMS Night at the Symphony, and future mixers.

 

 

CMA Defends MICRA Before Appellate Court

California Medical Association, California Hospital Association, California Dental Association, and the American Medical Association will participate today in oral argument defending the constitutionality of MICRA.

The California Medical Association will argue in favor of maintaining California’s successful Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) before the 5th Appellate District Court in Fresno today. The court will hear oral arguments in the case of Stinnett v. Tam, a case challenging the constitutionality of MICRA’s cap on non-economic damages.  Counsel for amici California Medical Association-California Hospital Association-California Dental Association and the American Medical Association, will participate in the proceedings.

“MICRA is the national model for medical liability reform,” said Francisco Silva, CMA General Counsel. “The law was passed in response to a crisis to protect patients and ensure that physicians be able to practice medicine. The law has worked to keep medical liability rates low and has allowed doctors to remain in practice treating their patients.”

The entire medical and health care community is supportive of MICRA and has stood firmly behind it throughout each legal challenge.  Stinnet v. Tam is the latest of these challenges funded by trial lawyer groups from around the country.

Under MICRA, injured patients are fairly compensated, medical liability rates are kept in check, and physicians and clinics can remain in practice treating patients. MICRA allows patients with justifiable medical negligence claims to receive the following forms of compensation:

  • Unlimited economic damages for past and future medical costs.
  • Unlimited damages for lost wages, lifetime earning potential or any other economic losses.
  • Unlimited punitive damages.
  • Up to $250,000 for non-economic damages, also called pain and suffering.
  • MICRA also includes a sliding pay scale to control attorney contingency fees, ensuring that more money goes to patients, not lawyers.

MICRA has proven effective in reducing and stabilizing medical liability insurance costs, which in turn has helped limit the rate of growth in health care costs and increased access to health care for all Californians.

Not surprisingly, trial lawyers have long sought to overturn the limits on non-economic damages. Each attempt has been unsuccessful. That’s why in addition to challenging the law in the court, trial lawyers also will be seeking changes in the California State Legislature.  It is expected their changes to MICRA will include quadrupling the non-economic damages cap to $1 million.

Keep Physician’s Doors Open: MICRA Maintains Access to Care for Patients

We Need YOU to Help. Stop the Trial Lawyers from Raising your Malpractice Rates !

What is MICRA?

The California Medical Association spearheaded the effort to pass the nation’s landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA).  Prior to becoming law, California was embroiled in a malpractice insurance crisis in which frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards caused massive premium increases and widespread malpractice cancellations as medical malpractice insurers fled the market.

MICRA is a state law that stabilizes the rates for malpractice insurance in several ways:

  • Limiting the percentage lawyers can collect on malpractice judgements
  • Capping “non-economic” damages to a maximum of $250,000
    • Providing coverage for all ‘Healthcare Providers’ including –physicians, medical residents and students, dentists, nurses, therapists, psychologists, pharmacists, clinics, and health facilities

MICRA provides for the truly injured patient with:

  • Unlimited economic damages for all medical costs
  • Unlimited economic damages for lost wages and lifetime earning potential
  • Unlimited punitive damages to deter willful misconduct

Today, MICRA serves as landmark legislation and is considered the model law for liability tort reform for other states and the nation.  In fact President Obama singled out medical malpractice reform in his 2011 State of the Union address as an important issue for Republicans and Democrats to come together and address.

California is home to some of the lowest medical malpractice rates in the nation, an average annual savings of more than $30,000 than doctors in non-MICRA states.

The California trial lawyers are waging an aggressive campaign to reopen this law.  They want to raise their percentage share of the judgments and to increase the “non-economic’ damages from $250,000 to $1 million.  Medical malpractice costs would likely increase an average of $30,000 or more per physician.  Can you or your medical group afford that ??   The California Medical Association needs you !

Trade Group Representing Personal Injury Lawyers Aims to Change Calfornia’s Medical Injury Compensation Reforma Act (MICRA)

The SFMS has gotten word that the CMA anticipates a challenge to MICRA during the upcoming legislative session. A debate about MICRA has already begun in Sacramento’s Capitol Weekly. Below is the latest Op Ed piece written by Roger Peeks and Ellen Rothman of Californians Allied for Patient Protection.

The SFMS will work with the CMA to challenge any new legislation proposing changes to MICRA not in the best interest of physicians and patietns. You can expect that we will be asking you to call and write your legislators when the time comes to address this issue.
______________________________________________________

Consumer Attorneys of California, the trade group representing personal injury lawyers, would like to change California’s successful Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA).

By Roger Peeks and Ellen Rothman

They want to make it easier and more lucrative for lawyers to file lawsuits alleging medical negligence against doctors, hospitals, paramedics, nurses, community clinics and other healthcare providers.

Changing MICRA will limit patients’ access to healthcare, particularly care provided by community clinics which serve mostly communities of color, low-income Californians and rural patients. Also affected will be access to specialty care like OBGYNs, neurosurgeons and other specialists.

Further, a change to MICRA also will increase health care costs by billions of dollars each year. These costs will be passed along to consumers, the state’s general fund, and taxpayers.

Between the two of us, we oversee multiple community health centers in L.A. County. Our physicians and staff each year see more than 175,000 patients, ranging in age from babies to the elderly. We provide medical, dental and mental health services, and have facilities in schools to serve thousands of students in the L.A. Unified and Compton School Districts. All our patients are low-income, most are from communities of color.

We struggle daily to patch together funding to provide care and medication to our patients. Any additional costs our clinics incur due to changing MICRA will come directly from patient care. We strongly support MICRA as do community clinics statewide.

MICRA sets forth legal guidelines when a patient is injured in a medical procedure. MICRA ensures injured patients receive fair compensation for all economic losses, while limiting speculative, meritless lawsuits that drive up health care costs and reduce patient access to care.

MICRA provides full recovery of all economic or out-of-pocket costs. Past and future medical bills are covered on an unlimited basis as are past and future lost wages. Patients can sue for unlimited punitive damages. MICRA even provides up to $250,000 in non-economic damages (pain and suffering). Finally, the law sets forth an attorneys’ fees sliding scale to ensure more money goes to patients, not lawyers.

The reasonable $250,000 cap on non-economic damages is a fair way of limiting meritless lawsuits and keeping health care costs lower. But it’s a target of the personal injury lawyers because it restricts runaway payouts and the contingency fees they can collect.

If the cap on non-economic damages is doubled (some rumors have the lawyers going for a quadrupling of the limit), it would add more than $9 billion annually to the cost of health care in California. Increasing MICRA’s cap means:

Consumers will pay more for health insurance coverage.  A recent study found that doubling MICRA’s cap will increase the cost of healthcare for the average family of four by approximately $1000 per year.

Doctors, hospitals, clinics and all health care providers will pay significantly more for medical liability coverage, and could be forced out of business. California already suffers from an acute shortage of physicians. OBGYNs, rural doctors, specialty doctors and clinics serving low-income patients are particularly vulnerable to spikes in liability costs. Changing MICRA and the resulting increase in medical liability rates would make the state even more inhospitable and further limit patient access to care.

Negative impacts will be felt disproportionally by low-income and rural Californians, and communities of color.  These Californians are the least able to absorb increases to health insurance costs, and already have fewer health care options to begin with. They will be disproportionally and negatively impacted if MICRA is changed to allow more lawsuits.

Costs to the State General fund will increase by hundreds of millions annually – decreasing funding for health care, schools and other services. The cost to provide health care for current and retired employees covered through CalPERS will go up. Other state budget areas hit: Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, Department of Mental Health, Department of Corrections, Department of Developmental Services. The total estimated cost to the state ranges in the hundreds of millions.

Local governments will be hit twice. Public hospitals and health facilities self-insure against claims. Any dollar spent defending against a meritless claim is a dollar not spent on care provided to California’s neediest residents. Local governments also provide health benefits to current and retired employees. Those costs also will go up.

There is no legitimate policy reason to change MICRA. California has a $28 billion dollar deficit. Unemployment is in the double digits. The economy has not recovered. There is no public outcry (except from personal injury lawyers) to change MICRA.

That is because MICRA is working. And why groups including the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County and community clinics throughout California, along with the California Medical Association, California Hospital Association, California Dental Association, Planned Parenthood, California State Association of Counties, and more than 400 other groups support MICRA.

We join these groups because it is far more important to preserve patient’s access to affordable, quality health care, than it is invite more lawsuits just so personal injury lawyers can have a bigger payout.

This article originally appeared in Capitol Weekly.