Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Medical malpractice liability caps instituted in Texas in 2003 have failed to improve the states health care system, a Public Citizen report released today reveals.
These findings are crucial because the Texas experiment has been held up as a model by proponents of proposals now pending in Congress to limit patients rights. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the data show that the health care system in Texas has grown worse since 2003 by nearly every measure. For example:
The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured;
The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;
The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and
Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.
Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed
A dearly cherished myth of the anti-health care cult is tort reform. They steadfastly believe it to be the solution to the health care problem.
It isn't.
Tort reform doesn't work.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Medical malpractice liability caps instituted in Texas in 2003 have failed to improve the states health care system, a Public Citizen report released today reveals.
These findings are crucial because the Texas experiment has been held up as a model by proponents of proposals now pending in Congress to limit patients rights. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the data show that the health care system in Texas has grown worse since 2003 by nearly every measure. For example:
The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured;
The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;
The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and
Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.
Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed
In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report summarizing the first wave of studies on the experience of states that set limits on malpractice liability in the 1970s and 1980s. The report concluded that caps on damage awards consistently reduced the size of claims and, in turn, premium rates for malpractice insurance.
The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured;
The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;
The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and
Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.
LOL Please explain PA. Thanks.A dearly cherished myth of the anti-health care cult is tort reform. They steadfastly believe it to be the solution to the health care problem.
Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed
LOL Please explain PA. Thanks.A dearly cherished myth of the anti-health care cult is tort reform. They steadfastly believe it to be the solution to the health care problem.
Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed
What's your point?
Caps on damages for pain and suffering will significantly lower the awards paid to catastrophically injured patients. But because such truly severe cases make up a small percentage of medical malpractice claims, and because the portion of the medical liability premium dollar that pays for compensation is dwarfed by the portion that pays for defense lawyer fees, caps do not lead to lower premiums. Insurance companies and their lobbyists understand this so dont take our word for it, take theirs.
Premium on the Truth:
"Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific savings." American Insurance Association1
"We wouldnt tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates." Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association2
"Many tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and Ive never said that in 30 years." Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association3
Insurance Companies and Their Lobbyists Admit It:Caps on Damages Wont Lower Insurance Premiums
What's your point?
Simple the tort reform in pa, has killed your premise, You may want to look into it.
Sum it up for me. Make an argument. A vague reference to something you think happened isn't enough. Show me.
Simple the tort reform in pa, has killed your premise, You may want to look into it.
Sum it up for me. Make an argument. A vague reference to something you think happened isn't enough. Show me.
Make an argument, there is no argument.
Pa introduced tort reform that reduced the number of lawsuits filed without a cap.
This was done by increasing the threshold on which a suit could be filed, I dont recall the exact percentage, But if memory serves it was 48.2 %
there are many ways to do this and still protect the trial lawyers if thats what you are concerned with.
Research shows that caps on pain and suffering are unfair to patients with the most severe injuries, to women, to elderly persons and to children. While caps reduce the amounts of payments to negligently injured patients, research does not support the proposition that caps reduce the liability insurance premiums of doctors.
(Chapter 6).
Medical Malpractice Litigation in Pennsylvania
By LAWRENCE J. MCQUILLAN
From Pacific Research Institute
...the Pacific Research Institute, is funded by companies like Altria (the largest tobacco company in the world, formerly Philip Morris), Exxon Mobil, Pfizer and PhRMA.
Tort reform not the answer for states fiscal crisis
By LAWRENCE J. MCQUILLAN
From Pacific Research Institute
...the Pacific Research Institute, is funded by companies like Altria (the largest tobacco company in the world, formerly Philip Morris), Exxon Mobil, Pfizer and PhRMA.
Tort reform not the answer for states fiscal crisis
The Wall Street Journal and Pacific Research Institute are not exactly a reliable sources.
I'm always astonished that anyone would question the need for, and the effectiveness of, tort reform....unless they are lawyers.....and malpractice insurers
Has anyone ever seen an ad on TV that solicites those that might have a medical malpractice suit?
Can anyone sympathise with the need for the medical profession to CYA with every conceivable test, proceedure, and document?
Can anyone simply add up the costs of these additional tests, procedures, and documentation and conclude that they add to health care costs?
This is simple, common sense, not rocket science.
Let's imagine, hypothetically, that it was impossible to sue a doctor.
Would doctors still have malpractice insurance? Of course not. Whould they order tests and procedures that are more often than not ineffective? No. Would they need to document every word they spoke, wrote, or implied to each and every member of a hospital staff? Ridiculous.
Could doctors offer lower cost services to attract patients, driving down their price of their services? Yes
Fucking common sense, of course, is pretty far outside the realm of Lawyers, and the politicians they own.
I'm always astonished that anyone would question the need for, and the effectiveness of, tort reform....unless they are lawyers.....and malpractice insurers
Has anyone ever seen an ad on TV that solicites those that might have a medical malpractice suit?
Can anyone sympathise with the need for the medical profession to CYA with every conceivable test, proceedure, and document?
Can anyone simply add up the costs of these additional tests, procedures, and documentation and conclude that they add to health care costs?
This is simple, common sense, not rocket science.
Let's imagine, hypothetically, that it was impossible to sue a doctor.
Would doctors still have malpractice insurance? Of course not. Whould they order tests and procedures that are more often than not ineffective? No. Would they need to document every word they spoke, wrote, or implied to each and every member of a hospital staff? Ridiculous.
Could doctors offer lower cost services to attract patients, driving down their price of their services? Yes
Fucking common sense, of course, is pretty far outside the realm of Lawyers, and the politicians they own.
The Wall Street Journal and Pacific Research Institute are not exactly a reliable sources.
Those same companies and sources seem to be good enough when it comes to supporting things like, Oh say, cap and trade, and even this current healthcare bill. I find it interesting that you would call into question a connection the WSJ or for that matter the several companies listed when what was it, public-citizen I think it was your source on one of your articles who happens to support climate change legislation is on the same side as some of the sources your condmening now.
Common sense it would seem to me in this matter Samson would be not to limit damages which by the way I am NOT for, but I am for a loser pays system, one which would discourage the number of so called ambulance chasers. If a client had a case that was not on solid ground then they would be discouraged from bringing the case because of the cost associated with it.
I can tell you on one of your questions, I see a LOT more commercials on TV from attorneys looking for clients to bring suit against Doctors than I do Doctors advocating their services.
I'm always astonished that anyone would question the need for, and the effectiveness of, tort reform....unless they are lawyers.....and malpractice insurers
Has anyone ever seen an ad on TV that solicites those that might have a medical malpractice suit?
Can anyone sympathise with the need for the medical profession to CYA with every conceivable test, proceedure, and document?
Can anyone simply add up the costs of these additional tests, procedures, and documentation and conclude that they add to health care costs?
This is simple, common sense, not rocket science.
Let's imagine, hypothetically, that it was impossible to sue a doctor.
Would doctors still have malpractice insurance? Of course not. Whould they order tests and procedures that are more often than not ineffective? No. Would they need to document every word they spoke, wrote, or implied to each and every member of a hospital staff? Ridiculous.
Could doctors offer lower cost services to attract patients, driving down their price of their services? Yes
Fucking common sense, of course, is pretty far outside the realm of Lawyers, and the politicians they own.
