« Democracy's Savior or Assassin? | Main | When a Tax Generates Business »

Medical Arbitration Follow-up and Poll

by Tom Gregory

I did a piece here a little while ago about my stance on IHC’s mandatory arbitration agreements. It appears from the Trib article that state Sen. Parley Hellewell (R-Orem) is starting to see part of the problem. In a nutshell it’s this: Arbitration is a significant cost-saver for any medical provider as the likelihood of astronomical rewards is significantly reduced. However, the way it is set up now, IHC holds all the cards. The wronged patient pays half of the potentially significant cost of arbitration, whereas many law firms will only charge clients if they win. Arbitration agreements are kept private, so not only is the public left unaware if a particular physician is the target of multiple suits, but the concept of precedent—a cornerstone of our judicial system—is defenestrated.

Medical Arbitration
How do you feel about IHC’s mandatory medical arbitration policy?
I believe it will result in lower over all medical costs and support it.
I’m not happy about it, but willing to live with it.
I refused to sign and took my business elsewhere.
I’m mad enough to talk to my legislator about it.
I’ll pretty much sign any paper my doctor’s office puts in front of me so I can get out of there quickly.
Other


View current results

If a law was passed that allowed me increase my profit margins, but was of benefit to no one else, I’d fight for it too!

Like I said before, arbitration agreements are a good idea. But the way it has been implemented has some significant holes. The following changes would make to “hole” thing significantly more palatable:

  • Require arbiter decisions and award amounts to be public. IHC has access to all of the decisions as a party in each case, why should the public be denied access to them? This would also allow plaintiffs to better identify neutral arbiters.
  • The plaintiff’s expert witnesses and arbiter costs should be paid for by the defending party if the plaintiff prevails. If the defending party prevails, each party pays their own costs. Yes, this would favor public citizens rather than large corporations. It is the only part of the law that really does so. Everything else is so heavily weighted in favor of IHC, some concession should be made to protect the right of citizens to protest poor medical care.
  • Submitting to arbitration agreements should be voluntary. IHC has argued that most of their patients have signed the form without question—either many patients don’t mind the idea of arbitration, don’t expect to ever need it, or signed the form without reading it (I think this is the most likely). If the cost savings are as significant as IHC claims (and I believe they are), then having 90% of its customers sign the agreements should help them realize close to 90% of the projected cost savings.

One last little question: if arbitration agreements will save IHC money, does that mean the cost of my medical care (and thus my insurance) will go down? The pessimist in me says no.

If you have an opinion on the matter (and you should—it directly affects care for you and your family) then let your representatives know!

Posted by windley on January 8, 2004 04:05 PM

 Recommend this article to a friend
  Post this article to del.icio.us
 Format this article for printing