2. 考研
  3. When it comes to suing doctors, Philadelphia is hardly the city of brotherly love. A combination of sprightly lawyers and sympat

When it comes to suing doctors, Philadelphia is hardly the city of brotherly love. A combination of sprightly lawyers and sympat

admin2009-04-27  101
问题     When it comes to suing doctors, Philadelphia is hardly the city of brotherly love. A combination of sprightly lawyers and sympathetic juries has made Philadelphia a hotspot for medical-malpractice lawsuits. Since 1995, Pennsylvania state courts have awarded an average of $2m in such cases, according to Jury Verdict Research, a survey firm. Some medical specialists have seen their malpractice insurance premiums nearly double over the past year. Obstetricians are now paying up to $104,000 a year to protect themselves.
    The insurance industry is largely to blame. Carol Golin, the Monitor’s editor, argues that in the 1990s insurers tried to grab market share by offering artificially low rates (betting that any losses would be covered by gains on their investments). The stock-market correction, coupled with the large legal awards, has eroded the insurers’ reserves. Three in Pennsylvania alone have gone bust.
    A few doctors—particularly older ones—will quit. The rest are adapting. Some are abandoning litigation-prone procedures, such as delivering babies. Others are moving parts of their practice to neighboring states where insurance rates are lower. Some from Pennsylvania have opened offices in New Jersey. New doctors may also be deterred from setting up shop in litigation havens, however prestigious.
    Despite a Republican president, tort reform has got nowhere at the federal level. Indeed doctors could get clobbered indirectly by a Patients’ Bill of Rights, which would further expose managed care companies to lawsuits. This prospect has fuelled interest among doctors in Pennsylvania’s new medical malpractice reform bill, which was signed into law on March 20th. It will, among other things, give doctors $40m of state funds to offset their insurance premiums, spread the payment of awards out over time and prohibit individuals from double-dipping, that is, suing a doctor for damages that have already been paid by their health insurer.
    But will it really help? Randall Bovbjerg, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute, argues that the only proper way to slow down the litigation machine would be to limit the compensation for pain and suffering, so-called "non-monetary damages". Needless to say, a fixed cap on such awards is resisted by most trial lawyers. But Mr. Bovbjerg reckons a more nuanced approach, with a sliding scale of payments based on well-defined measures of injury, is a better way forward. In the meantime, doctors and insurers are bracing themselves for a couple more rough years before the insurance cycle turns.
    Nobody disputes that hospital staff make mistakes: a 1999 Institute of Medicine report claimed that errors kill at least 44,000 patients a year. But there is little evidence that malpractice lawsuits on their own will solve the problem.
选项 A、are over-confident of their social connections in daily life.
B、benefit a lot from their malpractice insurance premiums.
C、are more likely to be sued for their medical-malpractice.
D、pay less than is required by law to protect themselves.
答案C
解析 题干问："在第一句中暗示着佛罗里达医生…"。从原文第1自然段和第3自然段可知，在那里的医生更容易受到病人的诉讼而且要付出很高额的赔偿金，答案选项表达了此含义。而选项"对他们的日常生活的社会关系过分自信"在文章中并没有提及，选项"医生从医疗事故中得到许多的好处"与原文意思相反，医生不是得到好处而是得到损失，以及选项"他们所付的比被法律要求的保护自己的报酬少"从第1自然段的数据可以看出其与原文意思相反，那里的医生所付出的报酬是相当多的，所以皆不符合题意。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/D0a4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)