Research Shows Pre-death Pain and Suffering Damages Can Be Extended Without Increased Medical Costs
Consumer Watchdog has released important research indicating that the medical malpractice insurance loss ratios in California reached historic lows after the state's ban on pre-death pain and suffering damages was lifted in 2022. This significant finding challenges the notion that allowing such claims would escalate costs for healthcare providers and patients alike. According to Ben Armstrong, a qualified actuary from Consumer Watchdog, the average loss ratio among the five largest medical malpractice insurance companies in California dropped to an unprecedented 7% the year following this legislative change.
The data points to a stark contrast with the claims previously made by the insurance industry, which suggested that permitting pre-death pain and suffering damages would cause premiums to skyrocket. "The assertion that these damages are a financial burden is fundamentally unfounded," expressed Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog. The research highlights a decade-long average loss ratio in the state of 35.8%, significantly below the national average of 50.6%, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
California's lack of pre-death pain and suffering litigations had previously placed it among only four states with such restrictions, denying justice to victims who endured significant agony before their untimely deaths. Many families were left without recourse, as the inability to claim damages for pain and suffering following a loved one's death hindered their pursuit of accountability in cases of medical malpractice. The legislative changes implemented in 2022, however, have been a turning point for many such families, allowing them to seek justice and reparations for unaddressed suffering.
As the Senate Appropriations Committee prepares to vote on Senate Bill 29 (Laird), which aims to extend pre-death pain and suffering damages, the advocacy for this crucial legislation continues to mount. Consumer Watchdog has communicated its findings to the committee, emphasizing the undeniable data showing that the initial implementation of these damages has not negatively impacted healthcare costs. Tracey Mueller Gibbs, a San Diego resident who lost her son Rowan due to medical negligence, highlighted the profound importance of this legislation. She expressed her anguish regarding her inability to find representation for her case because of prior legislation preventing claims for pain and suffering before death.
"This issue is profoundly personal to me," she stated. "I hope no other family has to undergo the heartbreaking experience that my family has faced." Gibbs's advocacy, along with the research findings from Consumer Watchdog, underscores the need for California to adopt a more just approach, similar to other states where families can hold medical providers accountable for their loved ones' pre-death suffering.
As the vote approaches, the future of SB 29 remains uncertain, yet the data compiled by Consumer Watchdog lays bare the benefits of extending these damages. The burden of proof now shifts to the legislature to recognize the undeniable human impact and the necessity of ensuring access to justice for all families affected by medical malpractice. The hope is that lawmakers will approach this decision with empathy, weighing the evidence that suggests embracing pre-death pain and suffering damages does not impose the financial strain that opponents have long suggested it would. By aligning itself with the rights of patients and families, California can take a significant step toward a more equitable healthcare system.
The data points to a stark contrast with the claims previously made by the insurance industry, which suggested that permitting pre-death pain and suffering damages would cause premiums to skyrocket. "The assertion that these damages are a financial burden is fundamentally unfounded," expressed Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog. The research highlights a decade-long average loss ratio in the state of 35.8%, significantly below the national average of 50.6%, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
California's lack of pre-death pain and suffering litigations had previously placed it among only four states with such restrictions, denying justice to victims who endured significant agony before their untimely deaths. Many families were left without recourse, as the inability to claim damages for pain and suffering following a loved one's death hindered their pursuit of accountability in cases of medical malpractice. The legislative changes implemented in 2022, however, have been a turning point for many such families, allowing them to seek justice and reparations for unaddressed suffering.
As the Senate Appropriations Committee prepares to vote on Senate Bill 29 (Laird), which aims to extend pre-death pain and suffering damages, the advocacy for this crucial legislation continues to mount. Consumer Watchdog has communicated its findings to the committee, emphasizing the undeniable data showing that the initial implementation of these damages has not negatively impacted healthcare costs. Tracey Mueller Gibbs, a San Diego resident who lost her son Rowan due to medical negligence, highlighted the profound importance of this legislation. She expressed her anguish regarding her inability to find representation for her case because of prior legislation preventing claims for pain and suffering before death.
"This issue is profoundly personal to me," she stated. "I hope no other family has to undergo the heartbreaking experience that my family has faced." Gibbs's advocacy, along with the research findings from Consumer Watchdog, underscores the need for California to adopt a more just approach, similar to other states where families can hold medical providers accountable for their loved ones' pre-death suffering.
As the vote approaches, the future of SB 29 remains uncertain, yet the data compiled by Consumer Watchdog lays bare the benefits of extending these damages. The burden of proof now shifts to the legislature to recognize the undeniable human impact and the necessity of ensuring access to justice for all families affected by medical malpractice. The hope is that lawmakers will approach this decision with empathy, weighing the evidence that suggests embracing pre-death pain and suffering damages does not impose the financial strain that opponents have long suggested it would. By aligning itself with the rights of patients and families, California can take a significant step toward a more equitable healthcare system.
Topics Policy & Public Interest）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.