Tort Reform Failure

[Navy1960]

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.

What would you do if you had a cause of action but no money?

I'll answer your first one for you, I'm saying that the companies, you listed in association there have all supported those issues at one time or the other. In fact, there are MANY Op-Ed's in the WSJ for healthcare reform as well. On the other issue, if you had a cause of action then seek out legal aid for it, on the other hand if you lost, your responsbile for the cost of it.

 

[Christopher]

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 state’s 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

It works very well for Canada.
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

For neurosurgeons in Miami, the annual cost of medical malpractice insurance is astronomical — $237,000, far more than the median price of a house.

In Toronto, a neurosurgeon pays about $29,200 for coverage. It's even less in Montreal ($20,600) and Vancouver ($10,650).

The costs are strikingly different, largely because of the ways in which Canada insures doctors and protects those who are sued

That is a huge difference in malpractice insurance, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Samson]

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.

Have you ever studied economics?

Have you ever read anything but wingnut blogs?

Here's a little uncommon sense for you: costs don't drive prices. Markets drive prices.

Yes, I have studied economics. Have you?

I don't read "wingnut blogs." What are these? How do you know about them?

"Uncommon sense for [me]?" = Anything you've regurgitated so far

If you cannot comprehend that malpractice insurance premiums are a direct result of malpractice suits and potentially ridiculous jury awards and that this cost is passed to consumers, then there's not much more I have to say.

Why don't you continue to cut-and-past from "Consumer Advocate" websites.

This seems to be easier for you than thinking.

 

[Samson]

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.

Seriously.

Is this a joke?

Are you seriously suggesting doctors would adopt safe medical practices if they couldn't be sued?

No, I'm illustrating the hypothetical extreme.

Of course you have just revealed your REAL intention: to be able to punish the ENTIRE medical profession because of the proportion of doctors that are guilty of Malpractice. Your comment reveals extreme bias: The only thing that keeps doctors from "adopting safe medical practices" must be the threat of lawsuit?" This is of course what all Lawyers would like the public to believe, because it keeps them in business.

What would happen, however, if instead of civil suits, doctors could be only prosecuted for criminal negligence. What if there was no more monetary reward for plaintiffs and their lawyers for proving malpractice, but instead, the physicians' licsenses were removed?

 

[Joe Steel]

Have you ever studied economics?

Have you ever read anything but wingnut blogs?

Here's a little uncommon sense for you: costs don't drive prices. Markets drive prices.

Yes, I have studied economics. Have you?

I don't read "wingnut blogs." What are these? How do you know about them?

"Uncommon sense for [me]?" = Anything you've regurgitated so far

If you cannot comprehend that malpractice insurance premiums are a direct result of malpractice suits and potentially ridiculous jury awards and that this cost is passed to consumers, then there's not much more I have to say.

Why don't you continue to cut-and-past from "Consumer Advocate" websites.

This seems to be easier for you than thinking.

Focus.

Costs don't drive prices.

Understand?

 

[Samson]

Have you ever studied economics?

Have you ever read anything but wingnut blogs?

Here's a little uncommon sense for you: costs don't drive prices. Markets drive prices.

Yes, I have studied economics. Have you?

I don't read "wingnut blogs." What are these? How do you know about them?

"Uncommon sense for [me]?" = Anything you've regurgitated so far

If you cannot comprehend that malpractice insurance premiums are a direct result of malpractice suits and potentially ridiculous jury awards and that this cost is passed to consumers, then there's not much more I have to say.

Why don't you continue to cut-and-past from "Consumer Advocate" websites.

This seems to be easier for you than thinking.

Focus.

Costs don't drive prices.

Understand?

No: YOU focus: Malpractice Insurance costs are passed to the consumer, in this case, Health Insurers.

Obviously, these Health insurers have the choice, in a free market, to pay, or not pay for the increasingly expensive services, and physicians could decide to decrease the price of their services, and the profitability of their business.

The fact is that decreasing the price of services, and increasing competitiveness would be much more attractive if costs were also cut to maintaining an attractive profit margin...

UNDERSTAND??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Texas needs immigration reform and Palin in the White House

 

[Joe Steel]

What would you do if you had a cause of action but no money?

I'll answer your first one for you, I'm saying that the companies, you listed in association there have all supported those issues at one time or the other. In fact, there are MANY Op-Ed's in the WSJ for healthcare reform as well.

Well that just shows the WSJ's lack of integrity. Cap and trade is a market-based solution to CO2 issue. I'd expect WSJ to support it. Their opposition shows they can shift with the political wind.

Secondly, I can't imagine WSJ conceives health care reform to be what the majority of Americans conceive it to be. Most Americans believe the current effort doesn't go far enough. As far as I can tell, WSJ doesn't hold that opinion.

On the other issue, if you had a cause of action then seek out legal aid for it, on the other hand if you lost, your responsbile for the cost of it.

You're saying a injured person should beg for legal help in a country which claims to be a nation of law. Do you honestly believe a nation of free men can truly be free if they have no recourse but begging for justice?

 

[Samson]

Texas needs immigration reform and Palin in the White House

I just returned from Houston.

This is perhaps the ugliest city in the USA....fuckin scraggly pines, apartment complexes and housing developments all identially surrounding patches of green the inhabitants play golf on to keep from going insane....

Someone needs to cut the grass, and fight the fire ants....

 

[Joe Steel]

Seriously.

Is this a joke?

Are you seriously suggesting doctors would adopt safe medical practices if they couldn't be sued?

No, I'm illustrating the hypothetical extreme.

Of course you have just revealed your REAL intention: to be able to punish the ENTIRE medical profession because of the proportion of doctors that are guilty of Malpractice. Your comment reveals extreme bias: The only thing that keeps doctors from "adopting safe medical practices" must be the threat of lawsuit?" This is of course what all Lawyers would like the public to believe, because it keeps them in business.

What would happen, however, if instead of civil suits, doctors could be only prosecuted for criminal negligence. What if there was no more monetary reward for plaintiffs and their lawyers for proving malpractice, but instead, the physicians' licsenses were removed?

At the margin, immunity from liability (tort reform) would result in unsafe medical practices. The least capable doctors would look on it as deliverance from responsibility to take care and would generate larger profits from these practices. As their good fortune became widely known, more and more doctors would adopt them until the government stopped them.

 

[Meister]

Even insurance companies admit tort reform is scam:

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 don’t 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 wouldn’t 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 I’ve 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 Won’t Lower Insurance Premiums

Now I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do have this thing called common sense. But, it does seem to me that it's the insurance companies that make out like bandits with malpractice insurance. Why would they ever fess up that if you curbed tort reform, the premiums would go down? History does tell us that when we weren't a suit happy society that the malpractice rates were much much lower.

 

[Meister]

Lawrence J. McQuillan: CBO Underestimates Benefits of Malpractice Reform - WSJ.com

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 state’s fiscal crisis

The Wall Street Journal and Pacific Research Institute are not exactly a reliable sources.

pure deflection

 

[Samson]

Seriously.

Is this a joke?

Are you seriously suggesting doctors would adopt safe medical practices if they couldn't be sued?

No, I'm illustrating the hypothetical extreme.

Of course you have just revealed your REAL intention: to be able to punish the ENTIRE medical profession because of the proportion of doctors that are guilty of Malpractice. Your comment reveals extreme bias: The only thing that keeps doctors from "adopting safe medical practices" must be the threat of lawsuit?" This is of course what all Lawyers would like the public to believe, because it keeps them in business.

What would happen, however, if instead of civil suits, doctors could be only prosecuted for criminal negligence. What if there was no more monetary reward for plaintiffs and their lawyers for proving malpractice, but instead, the physicians' licsenses were removed?

At the margin, immunity from liability (tort reform) would result in unsafe medical practices. The least capable doctors would look on it as deliverance from responsibility to take care and would generate larger profits from these practices. As their good fortune became widely known, more and more doctors would adopt them until the government stopped them.

Again you betray your true prejudice: All doctors are incompetant or irresponsible, and will sacrifice their reputations to cut costs if it wasn't for the threat of punitive law suits that have the coincidental effect of lining the pockets of lawyers and malpractice insurers.

The threat of removing the doctors license would have the same result, except lawyers would not receive their portion of huge settlements, and Malpractice Insurers would go out of business.

 

[Bern80]

What a fuckin straw man this is. Who ever said tort reform was gonna be the one and only cure for health care in the first place? There are many things that need to happen. Tort reform is just one of many. It's a pretty basic concept Steel. Health care costs are exhorbitant because of the ridiculous amount that doctors have to pay for insurance. YOU have to cover those costs and make him money. If the doc can pay less in insurance he can then charge you less. Not rocket science.

 

[Navy1960]

What would you do if you had a cause of action but no money?

I'll answer your first one for you, I'm saying that the companies, you listed in association there have all supported those issues at one time or the other. In fact, there are MANY Op-Ed's in the WSJ for healthcare reform as well.

Well that just shows the WSJ's lack of integrity. Cap and trade is a market-based solution to CO2 issue. I'd expect WSJ to support it. Their opposition shows they can shift with the political wind.

Secondly, I can't imagine WSJ conceives health care reform to be what the majority of Americans conceive it to be. Most Americans believe the current effort doesn't go far enough. As far as I can tell, WSJ doesn't hold that opinion.

On the other issue, if you had a cause of action then seek out legal aid for it, on the other hand if you lost, your responsbile for the cost of it.

You're saying a injured person should beg for legal help in a country which claims to be a nation of law. Do you honestly believe a nation of free men can truly be free if they have no recourse but begging for justice?

What I am saying is that a person that has a legitimate claim should not have to worry about such mundane things as losing a court battle which they clearly would win if they had a case. However, there is no lack of legal assistance out there for those wishing to file claims for injuries , and what legislation such as "loser pays" would do is actually make those that file trivial claims go away and clear the docket to the point where those that really DO suffer those injuries can be HEARD, this realizing the honest vision of a FREE society. What you are as I understand it making a case for is allowing for the continuation of lawsuits for any reason and if you don't win no big deal just walk away. What you don't realize or pehaps you do, those legal costs for the sheer number of those suits are relfective in just about every aspect of our economy, and you an I are the one's that pay for it. If someone has a claim that is legitimate then they need not have to worry about court costs and fee's because they will be made whole.

 

[geauxtohell]

LOL Please explain PA. Thanks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ce-cover_x.htm

But a six-week study by USA TODAY finds that while some doctors in particularly vulnerable specialties — obstetrics, neurosurgery and some high-risk surgical fields — face severe problems, most physicians are minimally affected. Premiums are rising rapidly, but no more than other health care costs. They represent only a small slice of doctors' expenses. Even for the hardest-hit specialists, the most severe problems are concentrated in a handful of states......

USA TODAY found:

* Some states have rapidly rising malpractice premiums, especially in obstetrics, neurology and some surgical fields. But, on average, doctors still spend less on malpractice insurance — 3.2% of their revenue — than on rent.
* Large jury awards play a limited role in causing premiums to rise, despite allegations that greedy trial lawyers and frivolous claims are to blame. Less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning verdict at trial, according to insurance industry estimates.
* Why are malpractice insurance costs going up? The problem is two-pronged, according to research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. First, insurers are spending more to pay claims — 33% more from 2000 to 2001. Second, falling interest rates for bonds and stock prices have weakened insurers' investment income, their main source of profit. The Physician Insurers Association of America, the lobbying group for doctor-owned insurance firms, says investment income contributed 47% to its companies' revenue in 1995, but only 31% in 2001.

All of this is compounded by the fact that insurers slashed premiums in the 1990s when competition was fierce. Rates were artificially low, subsidized by investment income. Now, insurers have to boost rates to stay solvent.

Tort claims are part of it, but they aren't the total picture. Regardless of the facts that torts are (undisputedly) a cost for medical insurance companies (as they should be. If there were no torts, there would be no need for medical insurance), no savings have been passed on to Doctors in states that enacted "Tort Reform".

Medical Malpractice Caps Fail to Prevent Premium Increases, According to Weiss Ratings Study. - Free Online Library

Physicians in States with Caps Suffer 48% Increase in Median Annual Premiums, Even While Insurers Enjoy Slowdown in Payouts. Caps on non-economic damages have failed to prevent sharp increases in medical malpractice Improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional. insurance premiums, even though insurers enjoyed a slowdown in their payouts, according to a white paper released today by Weiss Ratings, Inc., the nation's leading independent provider of ratings and analyses of financial services companies, mutual funds, and stocks.

My problem with "Tort Reform" is that I see it as a Red Herring that the medical establishment throws out as the main problem. Torts are a problem, but they are not a large, or even a bulk of the problem. In this instance, while the fingers are pointed at tort lawyers and plaintiffs, it ignores the other problems inherent in the system.

Even if tort reform magically passed today, the same problems in medicine would persist tomorrow.

Tort reform is a politicized issue that ignores the other problems that make up the total "pie". It's really just a boondoggle for the insurance companies that doesn't save Doctors any money and disenfranchises poor patient's from filing suit.

At the root of all of this, I am still curious how State Legislators feel they have the right to pass laws that hinder citizens from their right to be made whole after malpractice. Furthermore, why should Drs. be a protected class of citizens who are insulated from litigation? As long as Drs. are not part of the government, they should not be afforded sovereign immunity.

I am not the only one with these questions, and I suspect the issue of the legality of Tort Reform will eventually reach the SCOTUS.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

I don't like the "Defensive Medicine" canard. It cynically assumes that Drs. are overly cautious simply out of fear of being sued. What about Drs. that are overly cautious because they don't want to lose patients?

Case in point, every kid that presents to an ER that has hit their head is generally going to get a CT to rule out an epidural hematoma. This is a condition that is easily treatable but will absolutely kill a child if not rapidly addressed. If 100 kids come into the ER with head knocks and 99 of them don't have an intercranial bleed and one of them does and the CT procedure saved the child's life, then was the cost of the other 99 negatives worth it?

This gets into a sticky situation. I don't think litigation and "defensive medicine" are a 1:1 correlation.

Furthermore, part of the cost of medicine is intrinsic. Over the last 50 years the field has gotten more technical with imagine, labs, etc. Very few things are now straight up "clinical diagnosis" and those things that are are so because an absolute diagnosis can't be obtained while the patient is living (i.e. the only way to absolutely diagnose Alzheimer's is at autopsy. Obviously not practical for a living patient). So the basic work up is expensive in it's own right.

Other than that, extensive documentation is just good medicine. Considering that other people are going to look at your notes and documents when they care for the same patient.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Some basic stats from '05: of all medical malpractice plaintiffs:

2/3rds never see a dime.
Of the remaining third, 98% settle for an average of $200K.
Of the 2% that go to court, only 1/10 get a favorable verdict for an average of $300K.

The problem is overstated.

 

[geauxtohell]

The threat of removing the doctors license would have the same result, except lawyers would not receive their portion of huge settlements, and Malpractice Insurers would go out of business.

Doctors do lose their licenses, all the time.

Though, it's usually for ethical or gross incompetence.

If you establish the precedent that every Doctor that screws up is going to have their license reviewed, you are going to create a much bigger problem than we have right now.

Doctors are humans and make mistakes like everyone else. The only difference is, inherent to the profession, mistakes cause morbidity and mortality. That's just the nature of the beast. It's not reasonable to expect them to be automatrons.

That's why it's important to preserve litigation as a means of recourse against malpractice.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

Some basic stats from '05: of all medical malpractice plaintiffs:

2/3rds never see a dime.
Of the remaining third, 98% settle for an average of $200K.
Of the 2% that go to court, only 1/10 get a favorable verdict for an average of $300K.

The problem is overstated.

Perhaps, but my position is that tort reform when used in conjunction with an overall stradgedy of healthcare reform can be very effective. However used alone as the only solution to lower the costs of healthcare insurance or costs, it has little impact as seen in the CBO analysis.

What you claim are the results of the litigation not the amount of litigation that has an effect on the economy. "Loser Pays" does not deny those seeking a relief from the courts , what it does is set out to discourage those that litigate for the simple purpose of seeking a favorable outcome regadless if the client is deserving or not.

I am not in favor of caps on litigation but I am for making it clear that if you as a citizen plan to seek redress in the courts then you do so knowing that if you lose you will be responsible for the costs.