How will health courts better serve health care providers than the current tort system?
Both patients and providers will benefit in several ways from the health court system. Providers will know what the appropriate standard of care is because health court judges will write opinions that set precedent clarifying the standard of care. Without undue fear of lawsuits, there will be a greater sharing of information between providers that will improve patient safety and the quality of care. In addition, more consistent and reliable judgments will eventually mean lower medical malpractice premiums, meaning that more providers will be able to afford practicing, increasing access to care.
Do health courts abridge the right to a jury trial? Do they abridge the right to due process?
Congress has broad powers to authorize pilots for specialized health tribunals under the Spending Clause and under the Commerce Clause, because medical injury litigation is economic activity that is in and affects interstate commerce. [See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987); Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]. Contrary provisions of state law, if any, would be pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause. [See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984); Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956)]. Moreover, similar federal administrative compensation systems have been upheld against constitutional challenge. [See Colaio v. Feinberg, 262 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), aff'd Schneider v. Feinberg, 345 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2003)]. State constitutions vary, but do not likely preclude the development of health courts so long as they provide an adequate substitute remedy for patients.
More on Monday. In the meantime, check out Common Good for more info.
Comments