Arbitration in health care settings.
Who provides malpractice insurance to more doctors in Utah than any other carrier? It's Utah Medical Insurance Association. What they think about binding arbitration is telling. This is what UMIA's website states
"More and more UMIA claims are covered by arbitration agreements, and while the number of claims covered by arbitration is still small, the results are encouraging." http://www.umia.com/arbitration.html
So a huge insurance company that insures sometimes negligent doctors finds the results of arbitration "encouraging." Clearly arbitration usually does not benefit the injured patient, it benefits negligent physicians and the insurance companies who provide their coverage.
I'm not suggesting arbitration is always a bad idea. It can be a beneficial way to resolve disputes short of a trial. It is fair when an injury has already occurred, both parties have counsel, and there is a neutral arbitrator available. It is, however, clearly unfair in a medical setting where the patient signs away their right to a jury trial in a doctor's office before an injury has even occurred.
Comments