Medical Malpractice Reform Savings would be Small, CBO Report says

[Modbert]

Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says -- latimes.com

Reporting from Washington - Medical malpractice reform is unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency

On Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) blasted Democrats for blocking attempts to reform malpractice laws. "Almost everybody agrees that we can save between $100 billion and $200 billion if we had effective medical malpractice reform," he said

This is the first Congressional Budget Office report to put a price tag on so-called defensive medicine, procedures and tests that stave off the threat of lawsuits but may not improve patient health. The agency found that reducing those measures through malpractice reform would lower healthcare spending by three-tenths of 1%.

Alright Republicans, Plan A turned out to be total shit. Medical Malpractice is seemingly going to solve nothing. (Just like I said a couple weeks ago).

So what's Plan B?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says -- latimes.com

Reporting from Washington - Medical malpractice reform is unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency

On Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) blasted Democrats for blocking attempts to reform malpractice laws. "Almost everybody agrees that we can save between $100 billion and $200 billion if we had effective medical malpractice reform," he said

This is the first Congressional Budget Office report to put a price tag on so-called defensive medicine, procedures and tests that stave off the threat of lawsuits but may not improve patient health. The agency found that reducing those measures through malpractice reform would lower healthcare spending by three-tenths of 1%.

Alright Republicans, Plan A turned out to be total shit. Medical Malpractice is seemingly going to solve nothing. (Just like I said a couple weeks ago).

So what's Plan B?

So this is the excuse for not trying to save 11 billion dollars of tax payer money....because the CBO says it won't amount to a hill of fucking beans? Yet it's OK to run a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit.....and spend another trillion dollars on a government run healthcare system that will be abused just as much as Medicare.....which has over 500 billion dollars in fraudulent claims thus far....

ya.....that makes sense...woooohoooo!

 

[Modbert]

So this is the excuse for not trying to save 11 billion dollars of tax payer money....because the CBO says it won't amount to a hill of fucking beans? Yet it's OK to run a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit.....and spend another trillion dollars on a government run healthcare system that will be abused just as much as Medicare.....which has over 500 billion dollars in fraudulent claims thus far....

ya.....that makes sense...woooohoooo!

This was suppose to be the cure-all according to some Republicans, it hasn't been. Considering the amount it's going to save, it's good to still do it but it's not going to solve much in the long run.

Republicans throughout this board have been using the CBO to bash the Democratic plans. This is what happens when the Republicans actually offer up something in return. Turns out their ideas may not seem so good either.

I also never said anything you just made assumptions about. So I'm not sure why you believe any of that is relevant to this thread. All you're doing there is dishonestly framing my argument to suit what you want to say.

So I'm going to ask again. What's Plan B?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That would be because it is a dishonest appraisal. The cost of malpractice is not just the money one pays in awards to claimants, it is in the higher prices one pays for insurance, for the increased risk that doctors will practice medicine designed to protect them from charges of mal practice ( ie, more costly and just more, tests).

A few years ago there was a report out that in some States with no tort reform it was becoming increasingly difficult to find OB-GYN and maternity doctors outside of large Metropolitan areas because of the increased law suits ( that are crap) claiming all kind of normal conditions were caused by doctors. Think Edwards and his ignorant antics as a Lawyer. Edwards got a jury to declare that cerebral palsy was caused by doctors.

 

[Si modo]

And now, for the rest of the story...

Sadly, but as usual with the press, I need to go to the actual horse's mouth for the full story. Here is the actual letter from the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

Note the table at the top of p.4.

Here is an excerpt:

....

In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce
mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program,
and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next
10 years (see Table 1).2 That figure includes a larger percentage decline in Medicare’s
spending than in the other programs’ or in national health spending in general, a
calculation based on empirical evidence showing that the impact of tort reform on the
utilization of health care services is greater for Medicare than for the rest of the health
care system. One possible explanation for that disparity is that the bulk of Medicare’s
spending is on a fee-for-service basis, whereas most private health care spending occurs
through plans that manage care to some degree. Such plans limit the use of services that
have marginal or no benefit to patients (some of which might otherwise be provided as
“defensive” medicine); in that way, plans control costs and keep premiums lower than
they otherwise would be. In research reported in 2002, Kessler and McClellan found that
when tort reform was introduced, health care spending in regions with relatively more
enrollees in managed care plans did not fall as much as it did in regions with relatively
fewer enrollees. Presumably, the managed care plans had already eliminated some of the
defensive medicine that would otherwise have been diminished by tort reform.

By reducing spending on health care in the private sector, the package of proposals
discussed here would also affect federal revenues. Much private-sector health care is
provided through employment-based insurance that represents nontaxable compensation.
Lower costs for health care arising from those proposals would lead to higher taxable
wages and thereby increase federal tax revenues by an estimated $13 billion over the next
10 years, according to estimates by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
Combining the effects on both mandatory spending and revenues, a tort reform package
of the sort described earlier in this letter would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly
$54 billion over the next 10 years. That estimate assumes that a change enacted in 2010
would have an impact that increased over time, achieving its full effect after four years,
as providers gradually changed their practice patterns. Of course, the estimated effect of
any specific legislative proposal would depend on the details of that proposal.
....​

 

[Modbert]

The rest of the story? The numbers are right in my link.

My link:

Would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -

Taking all those numbers in your link, divide them by the 10 years, and you got that number or roughly that number.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So this is the excuse for not trying to save 11 billion dollars of tax payer money....because the CBO says it won't amount to a hill of fucking beans? Yet it's OK to run a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit.....and spend another trillion dollars on a government run healthcare system that will be abused just as much as Medicare.....which has over 500 billion dollars in fraudulent claims thus far....

ya.....that makes sense...woooohoooo!

This was suppose to be the cure-all according to some Republicans, it hasn't been. Considering the amount it's going to save, it's good to still do it but it's not going to solve much in the long run.

Republicans throughout this board have been using the CBO to bash the Democratic plans. This is what happens when the Republicans actually offer up something in return. Turns out their ideas may not seem so good either.

I also never said anything you just made assumptions about. So I'm not sure why you believe any of that is relevant to this thread. All you're doing there is dishonestly framing my argument to suit what you want to say.

So I'm going to ask again. What's Plan B?

I didn't frame anything...all I did was show you that the CBO saying 11 billion dollars in savings is not worth the effort. What kind of bullshit is that? 11 billion dollars would buy a lot of MRAP's for our troops in harms way right now.

Gunny has a valid point as well...the figures you present are only one tiny segment of the entire tort reform/malpractice insurance cost issue. If you add in all of the other savings realized it would add up to what Kyl said.
Now..add in the savings that would be created by lower insurance premiums paid by Americans, no unecessary testing, the lowering of prices paid in malpractice insurance premiums and the capping of awards...then come back to make your point.

 

[Modbert]

I didn't frame anything...all I did was show you that the CBO saying 11 billion dollars in savings is not worth the effort. What kind of bullshit is that? 11 billion dollars would buy a lot of MRAP's for our troops in harms way right now.

Gunny has a valid point as well...the figures you present are only one tiny segment of the entire tort reform/malpractice insurance cost issue. If you add in all of the other savings realized it would add up to what Kyl said.
Now..add in the savings that would be created by lower insurance premiums paid by Americans, no unecessary testing, the lowering of prices paid in malpractice insurance premiums and the capping of awards...then come back to make your point.

Except I did say it should still done. I'm simply saying it's not going to do much in the long-term run.

I'm not going to try and argue some issue that you're not backing up with any statistics whatsoever. I'm using statistics, I got a CBO report that Republicans have been harping on since this debate has sprung up. Now that it doesn't paint such a rosy picture for the GOP plan, it's suddenly missing parts and shit like that.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

At this point...no one really knows what's going to happen. If the current version of healthcare reform passes the tax increases for all Americans will go into effect in the beginning of next year. The program doesn't go into effect until 2012. That's 2 years of collecting taxs and spending it on lowering the deficit we have right now so Obama can say he lowered the deficit in a bid to get re-elected....and then in 2012 when this plan goes into effect there will be a MASSIVE borrowing and spending plan to pay for it. All of this smoke and mirrors is fucking bullshit....if we can't pay for it then we shouldn't buy it. I'm sick and tired of the government telling me what I need....I have survived this far with my skills earning me $***k a year...I think I'll be alright.

 

[Si modo]

The rest of the story? The numbers are right in my link.

My link:

Would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -

Taking all those numbers in your link, divide them by the 10 years, and you got that number or roughly that number.

Look at the table, Dogbert.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -

Multiply that by 10. Can't have it only one way.

 

[DiveCon]

So this is the excuse for not trying to save 11 billion dollars of tax payer money....because the CBO says it won't amount to a hill of fucking beans? Yet it's OK to run a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit.....and spend another trillion dollars on a government run healthcare system that will be abused just as much as Medicare.....which has over 500 billion dollars in fraudulent claims thus far....

ya.....that makes sense...woooohoooo!

This was suppose to be the cure-all according to some Republicans, it hasn't been. Considering the amount it's going to save, it's good to still do it but it's not going to solve much in the long run.

Republicans throughout this board have been using the CBO to bash the Democratic plans. This is what happens when the Republicans actually offer up something in return. Turns out their ideas may not seem so good either.

I also never said anything you just made assumptions about. So I'm not sure why you believe any of that is relevant to this thread. All you're doing there is dishonestly framing my argument to suit what you want to say.

So I'm going to ask again. What's Plan B?

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no one said it was the whole solution
just a part of it

 

[Modbert]

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no one said it was the whole solution
just a part of it

Go back and read.

People can disagree with what the statistics all they want, the CBO is nonpartisan and has no reason to be fudging the numbers. So I'll take them at their word for it at the moment.

So now, what's Plan B Dive?

 

[DiveCon]

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no one said it was the whole solution
just a part of it

Go back and read.

People can disagree with what the statistics all they want, the CBO is nonpartisan and has no reason to be fudging the numbers. So I'll take them at their word for it at the moment.

So now, what's Plan B Dive?

if you had read the PDF that Si Modo posted you would see the LA Times wasnt completely honest
and if you call 50+ BILLION not worth doing or a good start then you have bigger problems than i think

and btw, the "CBO" stands for "Congressional Budget Office"

and it is anything BUT non-partisan

 

[Xenophon]

Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says -- latimes.com

Reporting from Washington - Medical malpractice reform is unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency

On Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) blasted Democrats for blocking attempts to reform malpractice laws. "Almost everybody agrees that we can save between $100 billion and $200 billion if we had effective medical malpractice reform," he said

This is the first Congressional Budget Office report to put a price tag on so-called defensive medicine, procedures and tests that stave off the threat of lawsuits but may not improve patient health. The agency found that reducing those measures through malpractice reform would lower healthcare spending by three-tenths of 1%.

Alright Republicans, Plan A turned out to be total shit. Medical Malpractice is seemingly going to solve nothing. (Just like I said a couple weeks ago).

So what's Plan B?

The Same CBO that says 'Obamacare' will add a trillion to the deficiet in 12 years?

Seems you only want to belive them when the numbers are favorable.

Everyone knows what drove up medical costs, it was insurance companies rasing premiums over the flood of lawsuits.

One of the biggest special interests the Democrats have is trial lawyers, thus they have the budget office tell us that tort reform is pointless.

And of course the capper is to get the rank and file sheeple to go to the net to try and fool people with 'fun with numbers.'

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought that Obama said if we could save 1/2 of 1% that in the long term we would be saving trillion?

What the fucking fuck, are Obamaroids ignoring their Messiah?

 

[WillowTree]

I sick and tired of this "the savings are small" bullshit as an excuse for not doing something. all these "small" savings could add up to big ones. Don't your mama's teach you anything librals??? "A penny saved is a penny earned." So stuff that excuse where the moon don't shine. whydonchya?

 

[Xenophon]

I sick and tired of this "the savings are small" bullshit as an excuse for not doing something. all these "small" savings could add up to big ones. Don't your mama's teach you anything librals??? "A penny saved is a penny earned." So stuff that excuse where the moon don't shine. whydonchya?

They will say anything to defend 'the party.'

The party gets a large amount of its contributions from Trial lawyers, IE the Democratic party.

Tort reform would hurt these limosuine liberals extremly hard, ergo it 'isn't worth doing' and they get the budget office to confirm that.

Notice how they always float these things when they are about to spend a massive amount of money and raise taxes?

 

[Zoom-boing]

When did $11B per year become a pittance?

 

[ba1614]

It's only $11B, just a simple rounding error anymore. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter none of them seem to give a fuck about the debt they're saddling us with.