This would be advantageous to the provider and the patient, he remarks, “because the clinician would not be on the hook for those excess funds, and in the event of a large claim, the patient would have an increased likelihood of actually receiving the awarded funds.”
Relevant & Timely
CORC recommended these changes during its regular four-year review of the ACR policy statement on medical liability reform. “We wanted to address things that were directly relevant to and timely for our members and went through many iterations of edits to develop them,” Dr. Phillips says.
Beyond these additions, the section on arbitration and medical liability courts now includes expanded wording regarding state medical malpractice review panels, which Dr. Phillips notes is also in line with the GAC’s health policy statement that guides legislative advocacy. The added language advocates that all state medical malpractice review panels consist of physicians from the defendant’s specialty—in this case, rheumatology—and that those panels should be in place to review malpractice claims before they go to court, as a way to discourage frivolous litigation.
Dr. Phillips thanked the members of our committee for their hard work, while also encouraging others to consider participating in the College. “It’s rheumatology professionals in the real world who come together to volunteer in meetings and help put these positions together,” he says. “Anyone can be a part of doing this work. It makes a difference.”
Leslie Mertz, PhD, is a freelance science journalist based in northern Michigan.
