The Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis, Article Critique Example

Medical malpractice is surveyed in the article, and is a subject discussed at length in the text (Pozgar, 2012), is introduced as being “rooted in a flawed system” (Hoffman, 2005, p. 15).  As such, the medical field, effectively paralyzed from fear and a hemorrhage of dollars, has been forced to re-evaluate standards in doctor and patient relationships (Hoffman, 2005, p. 18). Hoffman then moves on to touch on aspects of malpractice, and negligence (Pozgar, 2012, p. 468), explaining that often in court, the testimony given is by a “plaintiff’s medical expert” (Hoffman, 2005, p. 16), who may or may not always be an expert witness in his or her field. Hoffman then touches on cost of malpractice insurance, and insurability of physicians, ending with a call to action, and a relatively simple way for that to occur (Hoffman, 2005, p. 19).

Hoffman provides some insight concerning a patient’s expectations of healthcare, which have been vastly improved over the last half of a century, to the point where the slightest mistake, from obstetrician or neurosurgeon, is likely to end in malpractice (Hoffman, 2005). At the best, this represents an increase in the quality of care rendered. However, as the article soon points out, a much worse prognosis is in the works. With increased malpractice, came the famed tort reform measures some time ago (Hoffman, 2005, p. 17).

As such, the medical field, effectively paralyzed from fear and a hemorrhage of dollars, has been forced to re-evaluate standards in doctor and patient relationships (Hoffman, 2005, p. 18). This has, in turn, led to a poorer relationship between patient and doctor, which only worsens the situation of malpractice which is based largely in trust (Hoffman, 2005, p. 19). All of this rings true, as does Hoffman’s diagnosis and recommendation for recovery, including a minimum qualification for medical expert witnesses, and bifurcated trials, as opposed to sometimes impartial trials by jurors, who haven’t heard the entirety of evidence. Hoffman ends by suggesting to “rebuild trust between doctors and patients”, by removing Judges, Jurors, and medical experts from the process of determining the extent of medical damage and payout (Hoffman, 2005, p. 19).

References

Hoffman, D. N. (2005). The Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis, Again. Hastings Center Report, 35(2), 15-19.

Pozgar, G. D. (2012). Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.