CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)
If it’s done right, tort reform could be a good thing. It’s important that we don’t water down malpractice lawsuits to the point where they’re unable to adequately protect patients and their families against malpractice, but there’s plenty of room to reduce punitive damages without undermining the entire system. If we can lower premiums for medical liability insurance without sacrificing protection for patients, that would certainly be a win for keeping health care affordable.
As I’ve written before, tort reform should be considered as part of a compromise on health reform, along with the public option. Tort reform has long been a goal of the right’s, and including it along with a public option could go a long way toward building bipartisan support for real health reform. Again, it needs to be done right, without overly weakening the protection lawsuits offer. But if done right, the left doesn’t need to be afraid of tort reform.
I agree 100% with this in principle. However, usually when Republicans implement bigger government it is to protect corporate profits and reduce citizen rights. It is proven that liability caps do not lower premiums. This is .2 of your .5. In fact, in some states that implemented reforms premiums actually went up. Republicans are pushing tort reform as profit protection for insurance companies. It decreases their costs, but they will still charge premiums that they know the market will bear. So, I would take that 11 billion and subtract 2.2 billion because premiums will not go down.
Tort reform should include insurance reform.
Loses from investments account for most premium increases, not increased liability. Doctors are being punished because insurance companies are really just investment companies tht have done poorly. If you really wanted to reduce premiums you would look at how insurance companies invest and cover their loses through premium increases.
Philly enquirer
But overall health-care costs in Missouri are still going up. The same is true in states that have enacted even more stringent tort reforms, such as Texas. This suggests a tort system run amok is, at best, only a small contributor to the nation's health costs.
In fact, it's not clear that malpractice awards have risen anywhere near as dramatically as tort-reform proponents insist. Nor is it clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums.
I think tort reform should make it easier to sue. If a doctor screws up, it is very difficult to sue. And I'm not speaking about little problems. I'm talking about major ones, even ones that can lead to death. Doctors often walk about without consequence if a patient dies because they screwed up. The reason: no lawyer will take the case. It is extremely difficult to sue a doctor. I think those who are able to sue are not abusing the system. They have been wronged and deserve their day in court. Tort reform will punish those who are already victimized. I say, make it easier to sue.
You can be sure, Jeff, that conservatives want to do more than just water down the system "a little." Medical malpractice suits are hard to bring; in Minnesota you essentially need the opinion of a medical expert witness that malpractice occurred before a case can even get off the ground.
All the tests and "defensive medicine" that the conservatives complain about is mostly doctors practicing the art of "differential diagnosis." Or, in more prosaic terms, the art of "really finding out what is wrong with you."
I'm afraid, Jeff, that conservatives have been pounding on you so long that you're starting to believe some things they say. I prescribe a long period of rest. and limit your intake of the offerings of right blogistan.
A limited "Best Practices Shield" is a better way.
At least then there would be some real science and research behind it. Malpractice is probably under litigated currently considering literally millions of people are injured every year.
The problem is that currently malpractice litigation is the only systematic control of the basic problem (medical injuries). Unless and until some other systematic control in introduced Tort reform needs to be approached very carefully.
Tort reform as the Republicans envision it is wrong and should not be implemented in any way shape or form. Like Alec said, this is an INSURANCE problem, not a tort problem.
Tort reform would cut one-half of one percent of the nation's health care expenditures. It seems to me that this reform could be a solution in search of a problem. More likely, though, it's a symbolic bone to toss to the opponents of health care reform.
Either way, I don't see it as necessary.
100,000 people die each year due to iatrogenic causes. What we need to do is regulate the providers of medical malpractice insurance. The average cost of insurance of an OBGYN on the east coast is $145,000 per year. The salary of an east coast OBGYN is not that much more than that.
We don't need reform that restricts wronged patients' ability to sue. We need to regulate insurers who are making it impossible for physicians to practice.
I think Jeff has been replaced by an admin at redstate.
No Jeff you're somewhat wrong on this.
The republicans support tort reform to the detriment of the consumer, ie the American citizen. All you have to do is look at the arbitration racket to realize how little opportunity there is for regular citizens to find satisfaction for wrongdoings through the courts because of the corporations use of arbitration and insurance companies abuse of malpractice insurance rates.
No doctor appears before a malpractice hearing that hasn't killed or maimed through mistakes before. In other words, once the burden of proof is met to even bring a case against a doctor, the record shows that well of 80% of these doctors are not under their first inquiry or investigation.
Consumers need more access to courts and the legal system, not less.
DJZ, you are just plain wrong (besides having a jaded attitude). Many, if not most, malpractice cases, are settled between lawyers and insurance companies before the case ever gets to court. People with questionable claims still stand a pretty good chance of shaking $5,000 or $10,000 out of the insurance company, since the cost of litigation would be much higher for the insurance company. When this happens, the doctor gets a permanent nick on his or her reputation without his or her day in court. There are lawyers who are adept at these cases as well as "patients" who successfully bring multiple cases.
Yet payouts have not significantly increased in decades, but they keep raising those rates. Its an insurance problem.
Quote from above comment: "No doctor appears before a malpractice hearing that hasn't killed or maimed through mistakes before." Your credibility just evaporated. See http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality category to understand the issue from a physician's viewpoint. It might require some open-mindedness.