Could Tort Reform of Medical Malpractice Suits Save Medicaid Billions?

Isn’t it bizarre that the party who pays for the medical services has no say in whether or not they got what they paid for?

Has Medicaid turned into a get rich quick lottery for low income people at the expense of taxpayers?

Are greedy third parties getting rich?

At first my recommendations may seem harsh but please think about the logic; this is one way to reduce Medicaid’s costs without reducing care.

Since medical malpractice is the result of breaching the contract to provide competent medical services, isn’t it logical that the party who paid for the service should have a say in whether or not malpractice occurred?

In a very high percent of medical malpractice cases the medical service provider is exonerated. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that frivolous case are brought by Medicaid patients, who have lots of time on the hands and are looking to increase their economic status. Often cases with little merit are settle for what is a small amount to an insurance company but seems like to fortune to someone with little of no money; the cases are settled because it is cheaper to settle than to defend them. Occasionally a case with little merit results in a large settlement.

Malpractice insurance is a major expense to medical service providers; the cost is passed on to patients and Medicaid taxpayers.

The latest double play works like this, first, someone transfers their parent’s funds before Medicaid can get at them, later they sue the nursing home and other service providers for malpractice. Why should these greedy children benefit from the settlement?

It is only logical that since Medicaid paid for the service, Medicaid’s approval should be necessary before a patient can bring a malpractice case.

In the event that a Medicaid patient receives a settlement, that settlement should by use by the Medicaid patient for their care. If upon their death the funds are not full depleted, the remaining funds should revert back to Medicaid. This should help reduce Medicaid costs and hopefully taxes.

Let’s look at a hypothetical case in which an elderly person received poor care at a nursing home. Their children sue and by the time the case is settled the patient is either dead or has so little time left that they could not spend all the settlement. Who should get the remainder upon the patients death? Should the family who did not support the person get the balance or should Medicaid, who pay for the care? These funds could be used for the care of future Medicaid recipients.

Please vote in our poll!