Dear Editor,

Doctors' concerns about the availability and affordability of medical malpractice insurance in New Jersey have sparked a series of legislative proposals to change the medical malpractice laws of this state.

Doctors have publicly blamed lawyers for this insurance "crisis." They point to an allegedly high number of lawsuits brought against doctors for malpractice, and large jury verdicts in some of those cases. Lost in the shrill rhetoric of such charges however, are some important facts. According to the records of the Administrative Office of the Courts, there has been an 18% reduction in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed over the past four years. Moreover, doctors prevail in an overwhelmingly large number of these cases. That is because the legal system already contains sufficient safeguards to ensure fairness in the process for those accused of malpractice. When, however, there is a verdict in favor of the injured party, it is because a jury, made up of members of the public, has decided that malpractice was committed. It is not the lawyers who make that decision; it is your friends and neighbors who do so.

Undoubtedly, there are some high-risk medical specialties that are facing real problems with insurability, and those problems must be addressed promptly. But proposed solutions, such as limitations on the size of jury awards or reductions in the period of time during which claims for injury can be brought to court, create significant problems of their own in terms of true compensation for suffering and loss, and reasonable access to the court system.

The role that insurance companies have played in escalating premiums and denying coverage must be closely examined. Some have alleged that the dramatic increases in doctors' professional liability premiums is more the result of bad business decisions by insurers than losses due to malpractice verdicts. That is an issue worth exploring. So, too, is the possibility of separately addressing the unique concerns of practitioners in certain specialized and/or geographic areas to ensure their continued ability to serve the medical needs of particular patient populations. Only after these issues are critically examined, and other questions about insurance companies asked and answered, should solutions be proposed.

A study commission made up of all interested parties, including members of the public, should be established immediately to undertake this important task. If reform is needed it should come only after due deliberation and consideration of the many facets of this difficult problem, with real solutions that enable doctors to continue seeing patients while allowing injured parties to seek redress in the courts. Access to care should not compete with access to justice.

Very truly yours,