Blog Layout

March 2015

March 16, 2015

Choose Malpractice Coverage Wisely

All physicians must have malpractice insurance. But all policies aren’t alike. It’s critical that you choose one that fits your practice’s needs. After all, if you don’t choose wisely, your practice could find itself in a tenuous financial and legal situation should someone be sued.

Explore types of coverage

Practices must address malpractice coverage by asking: How much protection does it want, for what period and events? Malpractice coverage is stated in terms of limits per claim and the aggregate limit on payments over the life of the policy.

There are several types of coverage to choose from. Most practices will be concerned with claims-made, tail and nose policies. A “claims-made” policy covers incidents that may occur during the policy period and that are reported while the policy is still in force.

When a doctor changes policies, it’s possible that some claims will be uncovered before the new policy kicks in. The gap can be filled by either “tail” coverage, which takes care of claims that arise after leaving the previous carrier, or “nose” coverage, which extends coverage of the new policy to an earlier date.

Review the provisions

There are several policy provisions physicians should review. Most will include a “consent to settle” clause. It requires the carrier to obtain the physician’s written permission before settling a claim against him or her. Without it, the insurer can settle a claim that the physician believes is defensible.

Several states have set up medical review panels and all claims must be heard by the panel before legal action can be taken. This reduces frivolous claims and helps lower premiums.

Another provision is related to the legal costs of defending a claim. Those costs, which can be upwards of $100,000, may be included “inside” or “outside” the policy limits. The latter is better. Otherwise, a $100,000 legal defense bill will be subtracted from a $1 million per occurrence limit, leaving $900,000 to cover court awards and damages.

Also consider claim acknowledgment. An insurance carrier may acknowledge that a claim has been made either by requiring that the insured physician receive a “written demand for damages” from a prospective plaintiff, which means the physician must wait to be sued, or the doctor is allowed to report an adverse outcome as a potential claim, known as “incident reporting.”

Select a carrier

Malpractice insurance companies take many forms. Some are physician-owned (“captive” insurers); others are traditional commercial entities. Work with a broker or an independent agent to find the insurer that best suits your practice.

The carrier must have sufficient financial resources to satisfy current and future damages claims against its policyholders. A close look at the carrier’s annual report and other financial statements will reveal information about its surplus, net written premiums and loss reserves — key metrics of financial strength. Also look at ratings issued by industry analysts such as A.M. Best Company and Fitch. A rating of “A-” or better is desirable.

Equally important is the carrier’s management philosophy, which is reflected in its underwriting standards, claims management and actuarial policies.

The cost will depend on the carrier as well as the coverage needed and the physician’s history of adverse events. Take advantage of preventive services that carriers offer to practices to help reduce their legal risk and maintain patient safety. For example, they may provide risk management tools through bulletins, publications and educational programs.

Protect your practice

Choosing the appropriate malpractice insurance will help protect you and your practice. Your CPA and attorney can help lead you through the process.

© 2014

This material is generic in nature. Before relying on the material in any important matter, users should note date of publication and carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness, and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.

Share Post:

By Katrina Arona February 19, 2025
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) which took effect on January 1, 2024 required "reporting companies" in the United States to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In May 2024, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution in passing the CTA. Background: December 3, 2024 in the Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court (Eastern District of Texas/Sherman Division) issued a preliminary nationwide injunction barring the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). December 23, 2024 the Nationwide Injunction is lifted and filing deadlines are reinstated. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of Treasury (FinCEN) may again enforce the CTA. FinCEN has not extended any filing deadlines. Therefore, all reporting companies should file immediately any beneficial ownership information reports (BOIRs) that were already due, and reporting companies formed prior to 2024 should file their BOIRs by January 13, 2025 (extended from January 1, 2025). December 27, 2024 the federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated a nationwide injuction halting enforcement of beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements, reversing an order the same court issued earlier this week. FinCEN issued an updated alert on its BOI information page , saying that companies can voluntarily submit BOI reports. February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves. Current Status: February 18, 2025 A federal court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction stopping BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN which enforces BOI requirements under the CTA said it would extend filing deadline for initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI reports to March 21. However, reporting companies that were previously given a deadline later than March 21 may file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. Resources for consideration: March 21 BOI reporting deadline set; further delay possible BOI Injunction Lifted FinCEN BOI Center
By Katrina Arona February 12, 2025
February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves
By Katrina Arona February 10, 2025
Some nonprofit executives try to control as much as they can. But micromanagement isn’t conducive to creating an effective team.
Show More
Share by: