"Medical Philanthropy Act"; provides physicians who provide uncompensated care with $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in actions alleging medical malpractice.
If enacted, A2652 would significantly alter the landscape of medical malpractice liability in New Jersey. By offering a cap on noneconomic damages, the bill reduces financial risks for physicians who voluntarily provide care without charge. It is intended to facilitate access to medical services for patients who may otherwise be unable to afford them, potentially improving public health outcomes. Furthermore, the bill mandates that the State Board of Medical Examiners establish procedures for confirming and reporting uncompensated care, thereby creating a structured approach to documenting such contributions.
Assembly Bill A2652, known as the "Medical Philanthropy Act," aims to incentivize physicians in New Jersey to provide uncompensated care to patients. The bill allows physicians who treat at least 10 percent of their patients without receiving compensation to be eligible for reduced liability in malpractice lawsuits. Specifically, it sets a cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages for malpractice claims related to the care provided in a calendar year where the physician meets the criteria for uncompensated treatment. This aims to encourage healthcare providers to contribute to community health without the fear of overwhelming liability costs.
However, the introduction of A2652 has prompted discussions around the implications of limiting liability. Proponents argue that the bill will enhance the availability of medical services, particularly in underserved areas, and reduce unnecessary financial burdens on physicians who provide charity care. Critics may contend that the cap on noneconomic damages could undermine patient rights, as it limits potential compensation for malpractice, particularly affecting patients who suffer severe outcomes due to negligent care. The balance between encouraging philanthropy among physicians and ensuring adequate support for patients in cases of malpractice remains a point of contention.