The Fired Patients Union recently announced on X that tort reform has made it nearly impossible to sue for malpractice or negligence, thereby weakening accountability and allowing negligent providers to avoid consequences for patients.
According to KFF Health News, more than 30 states have enacted caps or similar tort reforms. Experts note these measures can reduce payouts but also raise the burden of proof on patients, limiting access to the civil justice system. KFF Health News further reports that courts in some states have struck down caps as ineffective or unconstitutional, underscoring the contentious policy landscape. The outlet quotes legal scholars who argue that reforms must improve patient safety, not merely lessen liability exposure for providers.
Health Affairs provides empirical analyses of state reforms—particularly caps on noneconomic damages—showing substantial declines in malpractice claiming and payment frequency following enactment. This indicates that legal barriers suppress both weak and potentially meritorious claims. Health Affairs notes that effects vary by reform strength and design, but stricter caps are consistently associated with lower settlement values and fewer paid claims. These data support the Fired Patients Union’s concern that making lawsuits harder to bring can diminish accountability for negligent conduct.
KFF Health News highlights how plaintiffs’ trial lawyers and defense-side insurers both lobby heavily on malpractice policy, shaping whether caps, special tribunals, or higher proof standards advance—an influence that can tilt rules toward their financial interests rather than patient redress. The report states that damage caps make many plaintiff firms reluctant to take expensive cases, effectively narrowing the path to court for injured patients. It also describes proposals for state-run expert panels and higher negligence thresholds that would further raise barriers to recovery, illustrating how organized interests can manipulate the system’s incentives.
According to advocacy resources from the American Medical Association (AMA), medical liability frameworks differ widely by state and are tracked in AMA issue briefs and policy research. These provide context for groups such as Fired Patients Union campaigning on patient accountability and access to remedies. AMA materials document evolving state statutes, court rulings, and premium trends affecting the feasibility of malpractice actions and settlement dynamics. These references help situate Fired Patients Union’s advocacy within a national landscape of contested tort policy and stakeholder lobbying.
