In recent legislative proposals in Florida and Georgia, lawmakers have sought to establish a patient compensation system (PCS) as an alternative to litigation for compensating patients with injuries that could have been avoided under alternative healthcare (referred to as “medical injuries” within the legislation).

Proponents say offering a PCS as an alternative to litigation could lead to faster outcomes with claims. Advocates claim that faster claim resolutions and less attorney involvement would ultimately reduce overall costs, while providing access to compensation for more patients. They also argue that this system would benefit claimants with minor injuries, who are frequently excluded under the current system, because their claims generally do not result in the kind of large monetary awards that make taking an medical professional liability (MPL) case cost-effective for plaintiff attorneys. But can PCSs really provide the many benefits, in cost savings, fairness, greater access, and efficiencies, that their proponents claim?

This article was originally published in Inside Medical Liability, First Quarter 2014.