re: Our tort law system is the worst aspect of America, a cancer on our society.

quote:

---

Our tort law is based on English Common Law.

---

quote:

---

What system do you think is better?

---

quote:

---

How Denmark Dumped Medical Malpractice and Improved Patient Safety
In the U.S., patients harmed during medical care have few avenues for redress. The Danes chose to forget about fault and focus on what’s fair.
by Olga Pierce and Marshall Allen
Dec. 31, 2015

COPENHAGEN — It was a distressingly close call. A patient had been sent home from the hospital with instructions to take a common medication at a dose that would have poisoned her.

When Dr. Ole Hamberg heard about the mistake, he decided to investigate.

Hamberg, the head liver specialist at Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital, soon found something troubling. The hospital’s electronic prescribing system was mistakenly prompting doctors to give the drug, methotrexate, for daily use when it is safely taken only once or twice a week.

Patients throughout Denmark were being poisoned . . .

........

Denmark’s compensation program has been in place since 1992, replacing a lawsuit-based approach much like that in the U.S. The change followed a series of high-profile cases in which patients weren’t able to get compensation through the courts because it was too difficult to prove their doctor did something wrong. The Danish parliament adopted a system similar to those used in Norway and Sweden.

Today, medical injury claims aren’t handled by the Danish court system but by medical and legal experts who review cases at no charge to patients. Patients get answers and can participate in the process whether or not they ultimately receive a monetary award.

Filing a claim is free. Patients are assigned a caseworker to shepherd them through the process. The hospital or doctor is required to file a detailed response, which patients may rebut. Patients have access to their complete medical record and a detailed explanation of the medical reviewers’ decisions. All of this is available for patients and their families through an online portal, which alerts them when there are developments in their claims process.

Compensation is awarded if reviewers determine the care could have been better, or if the patient experienced a rare and severe complication that was “more extensive than the patient should reasonably have to endure.”

Reviewers most often apply one of two criteria, said Peter Jakobsen, chief consultant for legal affairs at the Patient Compensation Association, the body that adjudicates claims. The first is the “specialist rule:” How did the treatment compare to care an experienced specialist would provide?

“The patient is entitled to compensation if not treated at this level,” Jakobsen said. “You can have a situation with compensation where the doctor did a normal, good job, but not at the specialist level.”

A second common criterion is the “fairness rule.” If the patient experienced a severe medical event that occurs less than 2 percent of the time, he or she is eligible for an award. An unusual drug reaction or an infection after a knee replacement are examples.

Patients may file an appeal at no cost if their claim is rejected. Appeals are reviewed by a seven-member board of doctors, patient representatives, an attorney and two representatives of the Danish health care system. Patients may request district court review after an unsuccessful appeal, although that happens in only about 2 percent of claims.

If a patient believes negligence was involved, it can be reported to a parallel system for professional discipline.

LINK

---

quote:

---

There you go. The lawyers should police themselves. But nobody wants to kill the cash cow.

---