Tort reform

[mostpost]

There has been a lot of discussion of tort reform in the various "Obamacare" threads. I thought I would start this thread to consolidate that discussion.

First, a few facts from a recent study by the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://insurance.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=insurance&cdn=b2b&tm=4&f=00&tt=2&bt=3&bts=31&zu=http%3A//www.ne:

Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants).

The mean or average payment was $274,887.
The median was $111,741.

I could not find that the study broke those figures down in to economic and non economic payments. Tort Reform is trying to cap non economic payments.

Over the course of the study there was 66 claims awarded that exceeded $1,000,000 dollars. That is less than 1% of all payments.

According to Bloomberg Business week and the CBO the cost of Medical Malpractice suits contributes one to two percent to total health care costs.

That does not include the costs of doctors practicing defensive medicine.

We will start with that.

[Clocker]

I thought I would start this thread to consolidate that discussion.

Why? In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, what difference, at this point, does it make?

It is a dead issue. The Republicans tried to include it in ObamaCare, the Dems refused to discuss it. The reasons are pure politics and the facts aren't going to change anyone's mind. The Dems are in the pockets of the trial lawyers. A lot of the Dems are trial lawyers. It won't even be discussed under the current regime.

[FantasticDan]

It is a dead issue. The Republicans tried to include it in ObamaCare, the Dems refused to discuss it. The reasons are pure politics and the facts aren't going to change anyone's mind.Speaking of pure politics, we all know what the GOP would do if Obama suddenly embraced tort reform.. :lol:

http://bloggingformichigan.com/2013/11/04/obama-should-adopt-tort-reform-then-watch-gop-oppose-it/

[classhandicapper]

There has been a lot of discussion of tort reform in the various "Obamacare" threads. I thought I would start this thread to consolidate that discussion.

First, a few facts from a recent study by the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://insurance.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=insurance&cdn=b2b&tm=4&f=00&tt=2&bt=3&bts=31&zu=http%3A//www.ne:

Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants).

The mean or average payment was $274,887.
The median was $111,741.

I could not find that the study broke those figures down in to economic and non economic payments. Tort Reform is trying to cap non economic payments.

Over the course of the study there was 66 claims awarded that exceeded $1,000,000 dollars. That is less than 1% of all payments.

According to Bloomberg Business week and the CBO the cost of Medical Malpractice suits contributes one to two percent to total health care costs.

That does not include the costs of doctors practicing defensive medicine.

We will start with that.

I don't know much about this issue. I would just say that the cost of payments does not equal the actual monetary cost.

1. The cost of the insurance to doctors, hospital, and other health care providers etc.. exceeds the cost of the actual payments. That's how the insurance companies that actually make the payments make money. They take on the risk of extreme payouts in return for a profit.

2. There are incremental administrative and time costs to doctors, hospitals, and other health care and equipment providers just to deal with all this stuff.

3. There are legals costs to the doctors, health care providers etc... and costs within the legal system

4. Doctors and health care providers pass some of these costs on to other entities or people in terms of higher prices for their goods and services to counter the risks

I'm sure there must be other things I'm not thinking of.

There are so many moving parts, I have no idea what the total costs are in terms of actual dollar amounts paid, wasted money on defensive care, administrative costs, legal costs, higher prices for good and services etc...

But under any scenario, the idea should be to have sensible tort reform so that irresponsible behavior is still punished, there aren't people raping the system, and we aren't wasting all kinds of money that could best be used to increase the quality of care, have smarter care, and cover more people in a more efficient manner.

No way that happens as long as the trial lawyers have the democrats in their back pocket and it's hard to trust the republicans to not go too far the other way if the health care companies, drug companies etc.. have anything to say about it.

[Clocker]

Speaking of pure politics, we all know what the GOP would do if Obama suddenly embraced tort reform..

Why is the statement "we all know.." always followed by unsubstantiated opinion of some random anonymous blogger?

[mostpost]

Why? In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, what difference, at this point, does it make?

It is a dead issue. The Republicans tried to include it in ObamaCare, the Dems refused to discuss it. The reasons are pure politics and the facts aren't going to change anyone's mind. The Dems are in the pockets of the trial lawyers. A lot of the Dems are trial lawyers. It won't even be discussed under the current regime.
It has nothing to do with trial lawyers. It has more to do with protecting patients. Putting a cap on awards puts a cap on the ability of patients to be compensated for injury. Is a lifetime of paralysis worth only $250,000? A cap takes away the ability of a court to differentiate between various types of injury.

Putting a cap on payments, takes away the incentive of the doctor to do his best job for the patient. Maintaining the status quo encourages doctors to practice defensive medicine. Defensive medicine, reasonably practiced, is a good thing. It means the doctor is concerned for the patients well being. I would rather pay a little more to make sure that a symptom is a sign of something easily treated and not an indication of a much more serious problem.

[Clocker]

Putting a cap on payments, takes away the incentive of the doctor to do his best job for the patient.

You can't pivot like Obama, but you are sure in his league for making absurd statements to rationalize absurd opinions. This ranks right up there with Obama's claim that doctors prefer surgery to medicinal treatment because they get $50,000 for amputations.

If your doctor needs financial incentives to provide you with better care, I'd suggest that you tip him more. Preferably in advance. Slip him a twenty on the way in and he'll give you the good flu vaccine.

And give us his name, so we don't go there by mistake.

[The Judge]

Is there something special about Federal Tort Reform? As near as I can tell at least 35 States already have economic limits on recovery in Medical Malpractice cases. Read somewhere it was 38 and that ALL states had some sort of Medical Malpractice reform even if it wasn't "money caps".

Just from looking at the various articles and studies under " Google" the malpractice limit has not lowered Malpractice premiums, nor increase the number of Doctors practicing in 'reform states" nor decreased the number of doctors practicing in the states with only minor tort reform. Of course some argue that the Feds should leave it to the States. I am not about to sort through all these articles here are just a few if anyone is interested.

Doctors Fear of Lawsuits Thumps State Malpractice Tort Reform

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/08/07/300912.htm

Study"Texas Tort Reform Has No Effect on Physician Supply, Lowering Cost

http://healthcare.dmagazine.com/2012/08/28/studies-texas-tort-reform-had-no-effect-on-physician-supply-lowering-costs/

Medical Malpractice Reform: State vs. Federal Government


http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/19/medical-malpractice-reform-states-vs-the-federal-government/




Here is a list from Nolo Press

To learn more about medical malpractice damages caps in your state, look for it in the list of links below. If you don’t see your state on this list that means there is no statutory cap where you live.
Alaska
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

by: David Goguen, J.D.

So, which states have no cap on damages in medical malpractice cases? Here’s a list:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania (but punitive damages are capped), Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.

[newtothegame]

Mosty, I don't think its so much about how much is being paid on claims of malpractice. I think it is much more about how much is being paid by doctors to have the insurance to cover the 1% chance of a claim being paid against them.

If not mistaken, I believe I read that specialist pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 per year in malpractice insurance. That's a whopping 10g per month (if the number is accurate). So each patient he/she sees has to pay towards the 10G PLUS the cost of medicines and services provided.

If this was alleviated I am sure it could greatly reduce the cost itself of healthcare. On a good day, lets say a DR sees 25 patients. days a week that's 125 patients. 4 weeks a month and that's 500 patients.
That means each patient is paying approx. 200 $ more then they should per visit to cover that cost of insurance.
Now of course we are talking specialist (from the numbers I recall being about specialist).

Point is, that's a lot of cabbage no matter how you slice it. All in order to protect from the minimal chance of paying out 111,000??? (on average).

Now I am not in the insurance field and don't pretend to be. Then, when you add in attorney fees, etc etc.....you can easily see how the cost skyrocket!

I understand the need for patient protections but, I will also tell you that if I am sick and I am going to a dr, there is already something wrong! Blatant negligence happens...I understand. I do not want a pair of scissors left inside of me. lol
But, there are also many cases again of fraudulent malpractice claims which forces the Dr's hands again.

Personally, I feel there should be laws in this country where if you bring a crazy azz suit against someone and you lose, then the person bringing the suit should be forced to compensate the defendant. I know that can get crazy too but there has to be something in place to protect those who are ultimately trying to help us in our times of sickness.

[Clocker]

If not mistaken, I believe I read that specialist pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 per year in malpractice insurance. That's a whopping 10g per month (if the number is accurate). So each patient he/she sees has to pay towards the 10G PLUS the cost of medicines and services provided.

Here is just one example:
According to the Medical Liability Monitor (http://www.medicalliabilitymonitor.com/), in 2011, general surgeons in Florida's Miami-Dade County paid $190,000 per year for malpractice insurance.


It's a well-known fact that family medicine physicians and even obstetrician-gynecologists are giving up the practice of obstetrics because of the excessive cost of malpractice insurance and the fear of potential lawsuits.



In round numbers, an OB/GYN in Florida pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance. The average baby doctor delivers 100 babies a year. That's $2000 per delivery just for insurance.

[newtothegame]

Thatsall the more reason why its wrong to only use suits or paid out suits.
The suits are not the killer part. Its the insurance against the suits.....
That's why I mentioned that part...its crazy.....
An additional 2 g's per baby that doesn't have to be there.....

[reckless]

Why is the statement "we all know.." always followed by unsubstantiated opinion of some random anonymous blogger?

Because the left wing knows it can't win the argument based on simple reality and plain facts so they resort to inane and unsubstantiated drive-by comments.

This silliness does indeed 'work' when the elites and other pseudo intellectuals on the left talk to their very own brain dead followers but carries no juice whatsoever when the rest of us are included in the discussion.

[reckless]

There has been a lot of discussion of tort reform in the various "Obamacare" threads. I thought I would start this thread to consolidate that discussion.

First, a few facts from a recent study by the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://insurance.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=insurance&cdn=b2b&tm=4&f=00&tt=2&bt=3&bts=31&zu=http%3A//www.ne:

Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants).

The mean or average payment was $274,887.
The median was $111,741.

I could not find that the study broke those figures down in to economic and non economic payments. Tort Reform is trying to cap non economic payments.

Over the course of the study there was 66 claims awarded that exceeded $1,000,000 dollars. That is less than 1% of all payments.

According to Bloomberg Business week and the CBO the cost of Medical Malpractice suits contributes one to two percent to total health care costs.

That does not include the costs of doctors practicing defensive medicine.

We will start with that.

Mosty, if tort reform is no big deal because the monetary statistics you state are basically no big deal, then please tell us why in God's graces is it that the Democrats and trial lawyers steadfastly fight tort reform??

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mosty, I don't think its so much about how much is being paid on claims of malpractice. I think it is much more about how much is being paid by doctors to have the insurance to cover the 1% chance of a claim being paid against them.



As Mosty pointed out, lawsuit payouts only account for a very small portion of total hc costs. But he's missing the point - it's the threat of a lawsuit that has caused doctors to practice an extreme version of defensive medicine, ordering batteries of unneeded tests and driving up costs. That said, I don't think tort reform is a panacea in and of itself. I support it, but it's just part of the solution, not the solution.

[nijinski]

Is not just the physician . Many primary care doctors have to carry
for their staff especially if they have medical assistants who draw blood .
They don't make money on that , they lose , it's a service offered .

RN's are often asked to have their own insurance not MA's and MA"S
are often threatened when a difficult patient has a bruise or a sore
after venipuncture . It's all a liability of the practice . Just another
reason why some had to drop the service and send you to the local lab .

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mosty, if tort reform is no big deal because the monetary statistics you state are basically no big deal, then please tell us why in God's graces is it that the Democrats and trial lawyers steadfastly fight tort reform??

Because 1% of a huge number is real money (that huge number being annual hc expenditures in the US). It's $25 bn to $30 bn/yr in lawsuit costs. The trial lawyers get a large portion of that money, so they protect their self interests very well. Do away with the $25 bn to $30 bn/yr, and you still have very high hc costs (putting aside the defensive medicine aspect I referenced in a prior post).

[delayjf]

The trial lawyers get a large portion of that money,

I'm paraphrasing, but MostPost has stated recently on another thread that he objects to individuals using the system to enrich themselves, isn't that what Lawyers do all the time? How many lawyer millionaires did the Tobacco industry case produce?

[Clocker]

I'm paraphrasing, but MostPost has stated recently on another thread that he objects to individuals using the system to enrich themselves, isn't that what Lawyers do all the time? How many lawyer millionaires did the Tobacco industry case produce?

Yeah, but that's okay because all corporations are evil, and the evil tobacco companies are even more evil than the evil law firms.