In the past two years, the state of Nevada has seen the number of malpractice lawsuits against medical malpractice companies increase by an astonishing 2,000 percent.
That number is nearly twice as high as the number against insurers, and the numbers for the industry overall have also grown exponentially.
According to an analysis of Nevada law by the Nevada Law Journal, the number and size of malaccuses filed against the industry has grown by almost 2,500 percent in the past five years.
The growth of malpractices is not just due to the industry’s rising popularity.
Nevada has also seen an explosion in malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals.
Since 2007, the State of Nevada and the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs have been required to track every single lawsuit filed against a doctor or hospital, and to report the total number of claims filed against each.
That data is available in a public database, and is often used to justify higher rates of medical malpractice lawsuits in Nevada.
According the Las Vegas Sun, between January 2015 and January 2016, the department collected data on more than 7,200 medical malaccus suits filed against hospitals.
That means Nevada is now home to more than 50,000 lawsuits against hospitals, according to the Sun.
Nevada is also home to some of the most prolific malpractice cases.
According, the Sun, in January 2015, more than 3,200 malpractice claims were filed against health care providers, medical clinics, and other entities in the state.
The Sun also reported that nearly 6,000 malpractice allegations were filed in the first four months of 2016.
Of those, 1,095 malpractice complaints were filed by physicians and other medical professionals.
Those figures were far and away the highest recorded in any month of 2016, according the Sun report.
According a 2015 report by the National Association of Attorneys General, in 2016, more doctors, dentists, and others filed more than 9,000 claims against hospitals and other health care facilities.
That’s a far cry from the thousands of lawsuits that were filed on the heels of the Affordable Care Act’s passage.
According The Washington Post, the average malpractice suit against an individual doctor or medical facility was $5,000 in 2015.
By 2020, the amount of lawsuits had climbed to more $20 million.
But Nevada’s new laws, which are aimed at keeping doctors out of the industry and at limiting the number or size of claims that doctors can file, have been met with opposition.
One of the major critics of the new rules is the Nevada Association of State Attorneys.
The group, which represents the state’s four medical malcontent attorneys, has been working on behalf of patients and families since 2010.
But after the passage of the ACA, the group decided to take a stand against the new regulations.
On December 1, 2018, the association sent a letter to Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, urging her to repeal the new state law.
“This law is the single most significant assault on the integrity of the medical profession in Nevada since the passage, in 1996, of the State Medical Board Act,” the letter reads.
“By enacting this law, the Legislature is directly interfering with the physician-patient relationship, as the law clearly and unambiguously states that a physician’s duty to act in the best interests of his patient shall include, in this instance, patient safety.”
Nevada lawmakers have also expressed concerns that the state could be on the hook for medical malsuits after the law takes effect.
The letter notes that the attorney general has already begun to review medical malsuit claims against the state, and that the Department will soon begin to review claims against health systems.
In its own letter to the Attorney General, the NVASA said that it was not surprised that the law was not in place before the Affordable Healthcare Act was signed into law.
However, the organization does believe that the new law, if it becomes law, would be a major impediment to protecting the health of the public.
“As the law is currently written, it appears to be an attempt to provide a significant increase in the burden of liability for doctors,” the NVSSA wrote in its letter.
“However, the statute would require an increase in liability for physicians who were not engaged in a medical malformation prior to the enactment of the act, as well as an increase to liability for malpractice insurers in connection with malpractice litigation.”
The NVSSF’s letter also called on the state to take “appropriate action to make it clear that the proposed law will not be retroactive to the date it is signed into effect.”