Tort Reform Failure

[The Rabbi]

In MS before tort reform there were I think 2 practicing OB-GYNs in the state.

I am just going to go ahead and call bull-fucking-shit on that one.

You realize Mississippi has a medical school and that OB/GYN rotations are required for all medical students and that to have OB/GYN rotations you need OB/GYNs and residents, right?

You are right, we should totally defer to your expertise on this matter.

You're right. I overstated it. But there were still counties without an OB-GYN and the AMA declared MS a medical catastrophe.
Mississippi's Tort Reform Triumph - WSJ.com

 

[jillian]

While there is some merit to the point that low income and poor are left out in such a system because they are then held responsible for those fee's. There is nothing to preclude an attorney from accepting a client in that atmosphere on a payment basis, or any number of methods by which the attorney can be made whole.

Hi Navy.

I just wanted to comment on this part of your post. Attorneys who do personal injury and medical malpractice cases are willing to risk the costs of the action because THEY control the costs. They know how many doctors they're going to have to call, how many depositions they are going to have to pay for; what the cost of the court filings is going to be, etc. They make an assessment as to how good the plaintiff's case is an sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, but that's what juries are for.

they are not ever, under any set of circumstances going to risk the cost of legal fees for a white shoe, by the hour insurance company defense firm which puts two, three and four attorneys on every aspect of the case. the loss of one case would mean the end of the firm.

why should any attorney risk that... especially when you have no idea how well your witnesses are going to perform under stress... or what rulings the court will make.

if you take a look at this link, which i also included in my post above, it's intention is to dispel the myths surrounding malpractice actions.

Powered by Google Docs

 

[Samson]

So, what if we just suspended licenses for slight mistakes?

Given the option between paying for insurance premiums to cover mistakes versus a system where licenses are suspended for mistakes, I'd doubt you find many Drs. that would favor your position.

Your system is completely draconian. If a physician makes a mistake he/she loses their livelihood for a certain period of time and maybe forever?

Who in the hell would want to go into a profession like that?

I suppose only people who are confident in their skills?

Who would wanna be a cop?
Who would wanna captain a supertanker?
Who would wanna design a bridge?
Who would wanna be a teacher?
Who wants to be an airline pilot?

AWWWWWWWwwwwwwww....POOOR FUCKING DOCTORS: any other licesed professional fucks up, and they get their liceses suspended or revolked; but phycisians are "special?"

You're saying that physicians are a little sloppy and that their work is inherently error prone, and the public had better just accept the premium on healthcare that allows this instead of holding Medical Doctors to the same standards every other professional must have.

Bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

While there is some merit to the point that low income and poor are left out in such a system because they are then held responsible for those fee's. There is nothing to preclude an attorney from accepting a client in that atmosphere on a payment basis, or any number of methods by which the attorney can be made whole.

Hi Navy.

I just wanted to comment on this part of your post. Attorneys who do personal injury and medical malpractice cases are willing to risk the costs of the action because THEY control the costs. They know how many doctors they're going to have to call, how many depositions they are going to have to pay for; what the cost of the court filings is going to be, etc. They make an assessment as to how good the plaintiff's case is an sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, but that's what juries are for.

they are not ever, under any set of circumstances going to risk the cost of legal fees for a white shoe, by the hour insurance company defense firm which puts two, three and four attorneys on every aspect of the case. the loss of one case would mean the end of the firm.

why should any attorney risk that... especially when you have no idea how well your witnesses are going to perform under stress... or what rulings the court will make.

if you take a look at this link, which i also included in my post above, it's intention is to dispel the myths surrounding malpractice actions.

Powered by Google Docs

So plaintiffs attorneys can control costs but defense attorneys cannot? Hello?
And not every defendent is a white shoe insurance firm. Many are physicians, who get named to the suit for virtually no reason other than their name appears somewhere in the chart.

 

[Joe Steel]

ultimately, when doctors can cap the damage they can do to someone's body and life, i'll be all for capping damages.

Exactly. When we have no torts, we'll need no tort reform.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

Insurance companies pay the damage awards they claim are excessive but they never claimed limiting the awards would lead to lower premium levels. Assuming lower premiums lead to lower physician fees, why should we support tort reform if the insurance companies won't lower the premiums?

 

[Joe Steel]

"Loser pays" only disenfranchises the poor from recovering damages. Pragmatically, it means that trial lawyers would not take clients who could not cover their back end. Since trial lawyers work on contingency fees anyways, there is already an effective screening process for bad cases. A med mal lawyer is not going to take a case unless they think something is there, because they are going to suck up a huge amount of cost.

That is why 2/3rds of plaintiffs never see a dime.

Everything but the last sentence makes sense.

Presumably, in a contingency based system, all winning plaintiffs would see something. Losers wouldn't seen anything but their cases should never, or rarely, be accepted by prudent malpractice lawyers so we shouldn't see many losers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Even insurance companies admit tort reform is scam:

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.

Insurance companies pay the damage awards they claim are excessive but they never claimed limiting the awards would lead to lower premium levels. Assuming lower premiums lead to lower physician fees, why should we support tort reform if the insurance companies won't lower the premiums?

As usual facts are not your friends here:
Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi | Washington Examiner

 

[jillian]

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.

once again, in order to bring a malpractice suit, something had to have happened to the patient which wasn't an anticipated risk of the procedure or treatment. that lapse had to rsult in significant DAMAGE to the person injured or no one is taking the case.

There isn't anything "suit happy" about it. As has also been pointed out, the amount of money spent by insurance companies on malpractice cases is not even a half of one percent of their overall expenses. it is a fabrication.

if it were about "high premiums", the insurance companies wouldn't be asking for pretend tort reform. it's about windfalls ...

do you think the family whose daughter's intestines were sucked out through her body because of a badly designed and constructed product should be limited in the damages they could get?

THAT is what tort reform is... giving doctors and corporations a pass and sticking it to people who were injured by them.

this is just more of the heck with human beings, caveat emptor, randian garbage that the extremists on the right love pushing.

 

[jillian]

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.

Insurance companies pay the damage awards they claim are excessive but they never claimed limiting the awards would lead to lower premium levels. Assuming lower premiums lead to lower physician fees, why should we support tort reform if the insurance companies won't lower the premiums?

As usual facts are not your friends here:
Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi | Washington Examiner

that isn't FACT. that's an opinion piece....ostensibly based on statements made by Haley Barbour to the heritage foundation.

the fact that you can't tell the difference explains so much.

 

[jillian]

and on the subject of haley barbour, just so we know whose "opinion" we're talking about:

Barbour, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee with close ties to the Bush administration, has definitely proved more successful than his maligned Louisiana counterpart, Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, in one respect: lobbying Washington for cash. In fact, Barbour's ability to steer a lopsided share of Katrina money to Mississippi has touched off a firestorm of outrage in Louisiana, which suffered considerably more destruction from the storm.

A harder look at Haley Barbour's post-Katrina miracle - Salon.com

funny though... i didn't hear any of the rightwingers making noises about "equal protection" when the repubs tossed money at their former GOP boss... while ignoring the folks in NOLA.

 

[Joe Steel]

Insurance companies pay the damage awards they claim are excessive but they never claimed limiting the awards would lead to lower premium levels. Assuming lower premiums lead to lower physician fees, why should we support tort reform if the insurance companies won't lower the premiums?

As usual facts are not your friends here:
Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi | Washington Examiner

From the article:

That is the story that Mississippi's Republican, governor, Haley Barbour, offered on Friday, speaking at the Heritage Foundation.

Haley Barbour?

Seriously.

Haley Barbour?

 

[jillian]

So plaintiffs attorneys can control costs but defense attorneys cannot? Hello?
And not every defendent is a white shoe insurance firm. Many are physicians, who get named to the suit for virtually no reason other than their name appears somewhere in the chart.

I realize that you have issues, but nooooo, plaintiffs attorneys cannot control the costs incurred by the DEFENSE. Can you control the costs of a competitor's operaton?

I don't know if you really don't understand this or if you're being intentionally obtuse.

And if someone is "named", pre-discovery, due to statute of limitations issues (remembering that doctors are already protected by abbreviated S/L's) that is dealt with early on. It's certainly not an issue the "tort reform" crowd is concerned with.

Nice changing the goal posts though. I really do understand. It must be very frustrating for you to keep totally missing the boat.

 

[The Rabbi]

and on the subject of haley barbour, just so we know whose "opinion" we're talking about:

Barbour, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee with close ties to the Bush administration, has definitely proved more successful than his maligned Louisiana counterpart, Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, in one respect: lobbying Washington for cash. In fact, Barbour's ability to steer a lopsided share of Katrina money to Mississippi has touched off a firestorm of outrage in Louisiana, which suffered considerably more destruction from the storm.

A harder look at Haley Barbour's post-Katrina miracle - Salon.com

funny though... i didn't hear any of the rightwingers making noises about "equal protection" when the repubs tossed money at their former GOP boss... while ignoring the folks in NOLA.

You realize your response is not in the least responsive to what I posted, right? It is typical of the responses I've seen from you when confronted with obvious facts: change the subject, and blame Bush.
Please post something to refute the obvious fact that tort reform worked in MS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Insurance companies pay the damage awards they claim are excessive but they never claimed limiting the awards would lead to lower premium levels. Assuming lower premiums lead to lower physician fees, why should we support tort reform if the insurance companies won't lower the premiums?

As usual facts are not your friends here:
Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi | Washington Examiner

From the article:

That is the story that Mississippi's Republican, governor, Haley Barbour, offered on Friday, speaking at the Heritage Foundation.

Haley Barbour?

Seriously.

Haley Barbour?

Did you need spell check to get his name right?

 

[Navy1960]

While there is some merit to the point that low income and poor are left out in such a system because they are then held responsible for those fee's. There is nothing to preclude an attorney from accepting a client in that atmosphere on a payment basis, or any number of methods by which the attorney can be made whole.

Hi Navy.

I just wanted to comment on this part of your post. Attorneys who do personal injury and medical malpractice cases are willing to risk the costs of the action because THEY control the costs. They know how many doctors they're going to have to call, how many depositions they are going to have to pay for; what the cost of the court filings is going to be, etc. They make an assessment as to how good the plaintiff's case is an sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, but that's what juries are for.

they are not ever, under any set of circumstances going to risk the cost of legal fees for a white shoe, by the hour insurance company defense firm which puts two, three and four attorneys on every aspect of the case. the loss of one case would mean the end of the firm.

why should any attorney risk that... especially when you have no idea how well your witnesses are going to perform under stress... or what rulings the court will make.

if you take a look at this link, which i also included in my post above, it's intention is to dispel the myths surrounding malpractice actions.

Powered by Google Docs

Hi Jillian,

Thank you for the article it was very informative , however I my position really is quite simple. While it's true that for the most part that under most states current law, and I tend to think this is a state matter and cannot see how on a national basis something like this can be implemented, other than to compel states to act , such as with the speed limilt laws. However, currently under most states laws attorneys absorb a vast majority of the fee's associated with the cost of litigation and it's my contention that in doing so, it encourages those attorneys that are not so ethical to seek out and fill court dockets with needless malpractice littigation. You and I both know that the cost of this litigation is passed on in the form of higher malpractice insurance, which is skyrocketing and leading to some Doctors not even willing to practice in some fields of medicine. Those costs are passed on to the consumer, you and I and thus is just one factor not the only factor in the rising cost of healthcare. My position is that without a "loser pays" type of law, the current system is self promoting, in that a plaintiff has no consequences for bringing litigation. In other words there is no down side for doing so and it promotes an atmosphere that some in out society have and do take advantage of which has had consequences in the form of costs in healthcare. While I believe that the vast majority of lawyers are well meaning, and ethical and have nothing but the best intentions for their clients surely you cannot deny that this frivolous litigation has led to some of the things that I have listed above. While I do agree to some degree that "loser pays" tends to make it more difficult for the poor to seek redress from the courts, I have a bit more faith that legislation can be crafted so that the poor can have the ability to seek redress like anyone else. You know and I know though , the nature of our legal system is one in which that the amount of money you have is directly related to the type of representation you get. So knowing that if someone has a good case, then any "loser pays" legislation can be crafted to make sure that the poor are protected.

One more thing of note here, I do think that malpractice reform, tort reform, whatever you wish to call it , is but one part of many parts needed to actually reform healthcare. If anyone proposes this as a singular solution then of course it won't work.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

You have no common sense, understanding of human nature or sense of justice. You are an enabler apologizing for people you fawn over...

Doctors are a HUGE cause of the health care cost problem. It is called greed. They don't get a free pass.

Tort reform is another example of the right's love for punishment of those they don't fawn over or care one lick about, the victim.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is a long article, but it is a worthwhile read...

Op-Ed Columnist
The Sidney Awards

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 24, 2009

Every year, I give out Sidney Awards to the best magazine essays of the year...

This year, magazines had a powerful effect on the health care debate. Atul Gawande’s piece, “The Cost Conundrum,” in The New Yorker, was the most influential essay of 2009.

Excerpt:

The Cost Conundrum
What a Texas town can teach us about health care.

It is spring in McAllen, Texas. The morning sun is warm. The streets are lined with palm trees and pickup trucks. McAllen is in Hidalgo County, which has the lowest household income in the country, but it’s a border town, and a thriving foreign-trade zone has kept the unemployment rate below ten per cent. McAllen calls itself the Square Dance Capital of the World. “Lonesome Dove” was set around here.

McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country.

One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.

Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the country’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllen’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.

“Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”

Everyone agreed that something fundamental had changed since the days when health-care costs in McAllen were the same as those in El Paso and elsewhere. Yes, they had more technology. “But young doctors don’t think anymore,” the family physician said.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does one anecdote about one town with a few people interviewed really tell us, other than the agenda of the author??

 

[Joe Steel]

As usual facts are not your friends here:
Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi | Washington Examiner

From the article:

That is the story that Mississippi's Republican, governor, Haley Barbour, offered on Friday, speaking at the Heritage Foundation.

Haley Barbour?

Seriously.

Haley Barbour?

Did you need spell check to get his name right?

No.

Barbour is a public person. I've seen his name in print numerous times. In fact, familiarity with Barbour's reputation is the basis of my incredulity. This guy is a charlatan. No one who has any respect for for the truth would believe a word of what he says.