Thankfully, it is doubtful such a contract would be enforceable. With all due respect, in my opinion a person would have to be insane to trade their right to be free from negligence for a reduced fee. In your example, for instance, if the doctor negligently killed you during your surgery, you would have sold your family's right to recover any damages for only $10,000.00. While the State of Texas has already put a cap on non-economic damages of $250,000.00, I would surely rather see your family receive $250,000.00 instead of just $10,000.00, wouldn't you? In addition, all of your future income (not being subject to the non-economic damages cap) would also be lost to your family, and, depending upon your age and earning capacity, this could amount to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in lost income. Do you really want to sell your family's entitlement to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for only $10,000.00? Also, do you really want to determine your heart surgeon by whomever gives you the biggest price-cut? Finally, don't be bamboozled by the insurance industry's propaganda. A doctor who is not negligent has nothing to fear from lawsuits. There are so many hurdles and safeguards built into the system, I assure you that very, very few "frivilous" lawsuits are getting through. Humana (which, by the way, measures its profits in the tens of billions of dollars) has a lot to gain by spreading misinformation about these poor, mistreated doctors. (By the way: have you ever met a "poor" doctor? A "poor" doctor may have a two-year-old Mercedes instead of a brand new one, but very few doctors are not at the absolute top of the economic charts. Somehow, some way they are managing just fine, in spite of these "excessive law suits.")