Do Patients Need Protection from Hospital-based Medical Apology Programs?
Posted Dec 16 2011 12:00am
Are hospital "medical apology programs" a problem for patients who choose to participate in them? They seem to be, at least according to a recent blog note by Gabriel Teninbaum of Suffolk University Law School (see: Protecting patients from medical apology programs ). Below is an excerpt from his post:
To deal with the aftermath of medical errors, an increasing number of providers are encouraging injured patients to participate in “medical apology programs.” The idea, proponents say, is for patients to meet with facility representatives to learn what happened and why. It gives the patient a chance to ask questions and it gives providers a chance to apologize, and as appropriate, offer compensation. These programs are promoted as humanitarian, and, at least in terms of providing an emotional outlet for patients, they are. The evidence also suggests that they are about something else: money.....A 2010 study found that at one major facility, apology programs resulted in fewer injured patients making claims and, among those that did, they accepted a fraction of the amount in settlement compared to patients who made claims before the program was instituted. For minor injuries, no real harm is done by this; but the outcome can be cataclysmic for seriously injured patients who accept an apology in lieu of compensation. One explanation for why apology programs are so effective at keeping patients from asking for money is the strategic and legal expertise of those that run them. When a patient participates in an apology program with a provider, it is only after the provider’s attorneys and risk management experts have coordinated with the provider....Patients, by contrast, are less likely to have legal advice. Some programs, like the one run by COPIC – the largest malpractice carrier in Colorado – outright forbid participating patients from having counsel. One 2003 study found that 96% of apology programs do not advise patients to seek legal counsel before participating.
It will come as no surprise that part of the justification for hospitals mounting medical apology programs is to reduce the number and size of malpractice suits against them. Presumably this saves money for the hospital and their medical malpractice carrier. This goal notwithstanding, I personally view such programs as having merit. It's certainly useful for a harmed, or potentially harmed, patient to hear the hospital's side of a problem and an apology for an incident. I also don't see the need for the hospital personnel participating in apology programs to advise patients to seek legal counsel before participating in such a program. I think that it would be a very rare patient who was harmed due to a hospital error who did not seek advice from legal counsel. There are an ample supply of attorneys in medical malpractice law who would be eager to take on such cases on a contingency basis.
Are hospital "medical apology programs" a problem for patients who choose to participate in them? They seem to be, at least according to a recent blog note by Gabriel Teninbaum of Suffolk University Law School (see: Protecting patients from medical apology programs ). Below is an excerpt from his post:
To deal with the aftermath of medical errors, an increasing number of providers are encouraging injured patients to participate in “medical apology programs.” The idea, proponents say, is for patients to meet with facility representatives to learn what happened and why. It gives the patient a chance to ask questions and it gives providers a chance to apologize, and as appropriate, offer compensation. These programs are promoted as humanitarian, and, at least in terms of providing an emotional outlet for patients, they are. The evidence also suggests that they are about something else: money.....A 2010 study found that at one major facility, apology programs resulted in fewer injured patients making claims and, among those that did, they accepted a fraction of the amount in settlement compared to patients who made claims before the program was instituted. For minor injuries, no real harm is done by this; but the outcome can be cataclysmic for seriously injured patients who accept an apology in lieu of compensation. One explanation for why apology programs are so effective at keeping patients from asking for money is the strategic and legal expertise of those that run them. When a patient participates in an apology program with a provider, it is only after the provider’s attorneys and risk management experts have coordinated with the provider....Patients, by contrast, are less likely to have legal advice. Some programs, like the one run by COPIC – the largest malpractice carrier in Colorado – outright forbid participating patients from having counsel. One 2003 study found that 96% of apology programs do not advise patients to seek legal counsel before participating.It will come as no surprise that part of the justification for hospitals mounting medical apology programs is to reduce the number and size of malpractice suits against them. Presumably this saves money for the hospital and their medical malpractice carrier. This goal notwithstanding, I personally view such programs as having merit. It's certainly useful for a harmed, or potentially harmed, patient to hear the hospital's side of a problem and an apology for an incident. I also don't see the need for the hospital personnel participating in apology programs to advise patients to seek legal counsel before participating in such a program. I think that it would be a very rare patient who was harmed due to a hospital error who did not seek advice from legal counsel. There are an ample supply of attorneys in medical malpractice law who would be eager to take on such cases on a contingency basis.