Houston, we’ve had a problem.
by Bill Smith - all rights reserved August 2024
Thanks to visionaries like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, we stand on the brink of affordable space travel for folks link you and me. Whether you’ve dreamed of soaring among the stars or prefer the comfort of solid ground, your life could echo a famous cry: “Houston, we’ve had a problem.” This phrase was uttered by pilot John "Jack" Swigert during the Apollo 13 mission on April 13, 1970, as he reported a critical failure after an oxygen tank exploded.
While thankfully not literal, a similar sense of urgency looms over
Cormorant Garamond is a classic font with a modern twist. It's easy to read on screens of every shape and size, and perfect for long blocks of text.
millions of hospital patients every year, as preventable medical errors create their own figurative "explosions" within our flawed healthcare system. Just like the Apollo missions, where risk was ever-present, you face serious dangers if you or a loved one falls ill. There are some staggering facts that, like the 1986 Challenger O-ring failure pictured to the right, illustrate the urgent need for reform in healthcare safety, already at the top of the list of killers of Americans, killings due to preventable medical errors. Think about that for a moment. That means you and your family. Going to the hospital is more likely to kill you due to a medical error than taking the maiden voyage on the
Challenger.
We know that Governor Houchul, is busy conducting the business of running New York State. Though well-intentioned, she has vetoed the Grieving Families Act, citing objections based on information that seems valid, and seems to be from reliable sources, Such as from a prominent law firm that publishes articles like the example herein, a product of Coffey Modica, LLP. If the Governor read their article, or anything similar, our Governor might take the concerns express at face value which would likely influence here decision to veto rather than sign the Grieving Families Act, an act which would have already put NY’s healthcare on a path of improvement just like other states and countries who have reformed in similarly to New York’s Grieving Families Act.
Decide for yorself, here is the type of article the Governor may have used to make her veto decision and may be what kills the next version: Latest version of Grieving Families Act on a path to nowhere
It is referred to as an opinion but the author is Michael Mezzacappa, a partner and general counsel with New York-based Coffey Modica LLP. It lacks facts and throws out uncited, unsupported statements that seem more like a sales pitch to influence lawmakers than a credible article to help save New Yorker’s lives.
Who has the time or inclination to check on such a reputable law firm as Coffey Modica, LLP But underneath they are a firm that generally represents tortfeasors, those who commit the wrongful, often preventable, acts that harm or kill patients. A law firm like Coffey Modica, LLP brags about getting tortfeasors a good deal that usually leaves a grieving family with little or no settlement, instead it leaves that family with a member to bury. Let’s look at their article. First, it talks about updates but does not refer to any.
The article claims that the latest iteration of the Grieving Families Act byt does not incorporate any meaningful updates or changes since its veto. Where is the evidence that no significant modifications were made? How can we assess this claim without concrete comparisons? Furthermore, Mezzacappa suggests that the legislation could encourage frivolous lawsuits but does not provide specific examples or data to support this assertion. What evidence exists that ties the provisions of this bill to a higher incidence of such lawsuits? How can we validate this claim? The argument posits that increasing liability insurance costs would drive physicians out of New York, leading to longer wait times and declining healthcare quality. What data is available to support this assertion? Are there studies that substantiate the connection between insurance costs and physician retention? The article mentions an actuarial analysis predicting a $2.2 billion annual increase in insurance premiums if the bill is enacted. Where can we find this analysis? Can we verify the methodology and accuracy of these predictions through credible sources? It asserts that New York pays out more for liability claims than any other state, framing this as a failing of the current system. What reliable data supports this comparison, and how does it affect the viability of the Grieving Families Act?
Each of these points raises questions about evidence and claims made in the article, suggesting that without proper citations and data, these statements are mere opinions and thus should be non-persuasive, but as stated, is a nice sales pitch to get a veto. A pitch from a firm that makes its profit defending tortfeasors. Here are the real facts, about what happens when the framework in the Grieving Families Act are implemented and enforced. These facts are supported and cited.
1. Improvement in Deaths and Injuries Due to Medical Errors: A systematic review published in the Journal of Patient Safety (2013) found that the implementation of patient safety initiatives, such as the introduction of surgical checklists, reduced the incidence of surgical complications by up to 30% and significantly lowered hospital mortality rates. Additionally, a study published in BMJ Quality & Safety (2016) showed that hospitals in Michigan reduced adverse events by 40% after adopting a comprehensive safety program.
2. Decrease in Malpractice Lawsuits: Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2015) indicated that hospitals with robust patient safety programs experienced a decrease in malpractice claims. Implementing systems to address complaints and enhance transparency led to a 36% reduction in lawsuits among participating hospitals.
3. Healthcare Costs: A study by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) estimated that preventable medical errors cost the U.S. healthcare system approximately $19.5 billion annually. Reducing these errors through effective interventions can lead to significant savings. For instance, a Health Affairs study (2017) showed that implementing a patient safety initiative in a large hospital system resulted in savings of $1.4 million from reduced adverse events.
4. Medical Professional Insurance: The National Association of Insurance Commissioners reported that increased patient safety measures correlate with decreasing premiums for malpractice insurance over time, as insurers assess lower risk in facilities with demonstrated safety records.
For citable data, you may refer to the studies and reports mentioned above, which should be available from the respective journals or institutions involved. This data supports the notion that investing in patient safety and error reduction not only saves lives but also reduces costs and legal liabilities in healthcare.
In conclusion, it is crucial to recognize that flippant and unsupported statements, particularly when presented in an article that carries an air of authority—such as one that references a major New York law firm—can have significant repercussions. Readers who take this piece at face value may be misled by its claims, potentially swaying public opinion and influencing legislative discourse without a grounded understanding of the facts. Misinformation of this nature not only undermines constructive dialogue around the Grieving Families Act but could also detract from the sincere efforts to advocate for meaningful reform that genuinely addresses the needs of grieving families. It's imperative that we question and critically evaluate such narratives to ensure that informed decisions can be made based on evidence, rather than mere opinion.
In light of the recent article, it's critical to examine the underlying truths about the healthcare industry and the systemic obstacles that impede justice for patients harmed by medical errors. The narrative presented fails to address the very real issue that the defense lawyers of tortfeasors, particularly firms like Coffey Modica, play a significant role in perpetuating a culture that prioritizes profit over patient safety. While the article may paint a picture of tort reform as beneficial, it obscurely serves the interests of those who are more concerned with shielding negligent practitioners from accountability than with advocating for the vulnerable patients they claim to protect.
It is disheartening to see that the very firms responsible for these injustices, like Coffey Modica, are able to mask their actions behind a façade of legal expertise. As I began my advocacy journey, calling on Governor Hochul to sign the "Grieving Families Act,", YesGFA, I soon recognized a grim reality: the cover-up culture, often referred to as the "white-coat of secrecy," continues to thrive.
Healthcare improvement bills are vetoed, and legislative efforts are thwarted, all facilitated by a system that makes it increasingly difficult for malpractice victims to seek recourse.
For instance, the requirement of an expert witness — one who practices in the same field, geographic location, and other constraining factors — is akin to asking one astronaut to testify against another on their shared mission. This barrier creates a scenario where accountability is nearly impossible, as healthcare providers often know each other and may even collaborate professionally. Such hurdles are enacted in the name of "tort reform," likely influenced by lobbying from influential law firms.
Through this lens, it’s clear that patients, the very "little guys" in this equation, are left without a fighting chance against a well-entrenched system designed to prioritize the interests of those who profit from the status quo.
The bottom line is that if the culture doesn’t change neither will the number of deaths caused directly by medical errors hidden by this culture:
Culture of Impunity
The culture of impunity surrounding medical error cover-ups can be attributed to several interrelated factors. Firstly, a lack of transparency and accountability within healthcare organizations often fosters a climate of fear among healthcare workers, discouraging them from reporting errors due to potential professional repercussions,such as loss of licensure or reputation. Secondly, the hierarchical nature of many healthcare settings may contribute to an environment where concerns about errors are downplayed or ignored, particularly when they involve senior staff. Additionally, the focus on litigation and malpractice claims may incentivize hiding mistakes to avoid legal consequences rather than addressing systemic issues. Lastly, insufficient regulatory oversight and inconsistent enforcement of existing laws regarding medical malpractice and error reporting can perpetuate a cycle where wrongdoing is not adequately addressed, leading to a normalization of such behavior.
Has Governer Hochul considered these crucial questions that reveal the troubling dynamics at play?
Consider these crucial questions that reveal the troubling dynamics at play:
1. Who are the perpetrators of deaths by medical malpractice?
2. Who are the worst offenders of "profit over healthcare"?
3. Who has meticulously chipped away at the judicial system, making it nearly impossible for severely harmed or deceased patients' families to file a lawsuit?
4. Who salivates over the prospect of a family member finally getting their case heard?
5. Who is responsible for fostering a culture that positions the healthcare system as a leading cause of preventable deaths in America?
