Kerry's plan to reduce medical malpractice premiums:

[Fleshdancer]

I've checked the Kerry campaign website several times to get information on where Kerry stands on the issues but this is the first time I've read this. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty damn impressed by this idea:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/business.html

As president, John Kerry will require that a qualified specialist certifies a medical malpractice case's merit before it is allowed to move forward. He will also work with states to ensure the availability of non-binding mediation in all malpractice claims before cases proceed to trial.

John Kerry will make the system fairer for doctors and patients alike by preventing and punishing frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers who file frivolous cases would face tough, mandatory sanctions, including a "three strikes and you're out" provision that forbids lawyers who file three frivolous cases from bringing another suit for the next 10 years.

John Kerry also opposes punitive damages - unless intentional misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless indifference to life can be established. Finally, John Kerry will work to eliminate the special privileges that allow insurance companies to fix prices and collude in ways that increase medical malpractice premiums

[gratuitous]

1. A qualified specialist to certify medical malpractice?

It sounds like a good idea, but one thing absolutely needs to be in the plan: The qualified specialist must come from far outside the medical community where the malpractice is alleged to have occurred.

In the handful of med mal cases our office has handled, we've had to go at least 250 miles away, and in most cases more than 1,000 miles, to retain expert doctors willing to testify against another doctor. The usual response we get is, "Well, good luck to you. But I can't go on record against Dr. X because he's just too well respected in the community."

I would further suggest that the qualified specialist be given only the facts of the matter, with no indication of the identities of the persons involved, so as to minimize the chances of a decision based on fear or favor.

Absent these sorts of safeguards (and a few more I'll probably think of once I've had a couple of cups of coffee), I would be reluctant to create a privileged class of tortfeasors who are subject to the law only on the say-so of a "qualified specialist."

[Fleshdancer]

2. very interesting

I never thought about the obvious relunctance specialists would have disputing fellow doctors. Not knowing the identity sounds like a practical solution.

What are your thoughts on the three strikes concept?