No Tort Reform because the Dems are Afraid of Lawyers says....

[guido911]

Howard Dean:

http://www.atra.org/newsroom/dean-comment.mp3

Well there it is. Truth. Not "tort reform is unnecessary because med mal damage awards are insignificant" meme. Just pure cowardice. Oh, and the fact that trial lawyers are HUGE contributors to dems may also play into the decision.

[Conan71]

Guido, see if you can post that as a video, the link is not working properly.  Expecting the Dims to take on tort reform?  That's a gasser!

[guido911]

Con. Moron asked the guy that asked that question to prove who he was.

[nathanm]

Howard Dean:

http://www.atra.org/newsroom/dean-comment.mp3

Well there it is. Truth. Not "tort reform is unnecessary because med mal damage awards are insignificant" meme. Just pure cowardice. Oh, and the fact that trial lawyers are HUGE contributors to dems may also play into the decision.

Whatever Dean said doesn't change the truth of the fact that medical malpractice awards are in total an insignificant part of our healthcare cost. Didn't we get 'tort reform' here in Oklahoma? Why hasn't the cost of my SO's health insurance decreased?

Oh, because according to the questioner's figures the national savings would be $20 million a year.

[guido911]

Whatever Dean said doesn't change the truth of the fact that medical malpractice awards are in total an insignificant part of our healthcare cost. Didn't we get 'tort reform' here in Oklahoma? Why hasn't the cost of my SO's health insurance decreased?

Oh, because according to the questioner's figures the national savings would be $20 million a year.

Here's an article that claims defensive medicine costs are nearly $100B a year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511987247017719.html

In Texas, significant tort reform was implemented with the following results:

• The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as
well as almost 499,000 jobs in the state.
• The reforms with respect to asbestos/silica litigation, which were enacted in 2005, are already contributing $490.3 million in annual spending and 2,683 permanent jobs.
• Reforms related to limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation alone lead to increases of $55.3 billion in spending per year and more than 223,000 jobs.
• Benefits are spread across the state, positively affecting communities both large and small. Results are provided
for the state as well as every county, metropolitan statistical area, council of governments region, planning region, and
legislative district.
• The fiscal stimulus to the State from civil justice reforms is about $2.558 billion per year.
• Other positive benefits include an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in rural areas and other regions, which have been facing severe shortages and the inclusion of almost 430,000 Texans in health plans who would
otherwise be uninsured.

http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf

[cannon_fodder]

Tort reform has become nothing more than a euphemism for providing negligence immunity to the medical industry.  My firm won't do medical malpractice anymore and many others won't either.  After September 1st you'd be hard pressed to find a firm to do so no matter what went wrong.  Literally, even leaving a sponge in your butt isn't considered a good enough case to take.   So I have no horse in this race (my wife isn't a doctor, I don't work for a firm that does medical mal work on either side, I don't even own medical stocks).

But to address Guido's statements:


1) All the "job creation" numbers are totally made up.  There is no reason to believe that limiting the recovery of victims will increase jobs in any field.  It neither increased nor decreased the demand for health care.  Everyone knows the "jobs" numbers for things like this are total BS.  Invent numbers for "savings" then pretend every $200,000 or so created a new job.

The numbers purporting to back the figures make NO SENSE at all.  How did limits on damages save $55 billion when the total paid out was $3.7 billion?  How does Oklahoma get $2.5 billion in economic stimulus by limiting payments on medical malpractice that total $42 million per year?  By that math, for every dollar saved by limiting the rights of citizens to sue negligent doctors the State makes a sixty fold increase.

The actual cost of medical malpractice is tiny.  For some reason this tiny fraction is THE FOCUS for some people.  As if saving < 1% a year will save "the best medical system in the world" (which, oddly enough, isn't among the best by most measures).



2) Medical malpractice premiums account for .6% (six one hundredths of one percent) of the cost of medical care in the United States. The total cost of medical malpractice premiums was $13,800,000,000 out of $2.4 Trillion spent on medical care.

The cost of actual medical malpractice claims was .18% of the cost of medical care in the United States (with the former number including the latter).  $3.7 billion was actually paid out.

The U.S. spent $2.4 TRILLION on health care last year.  Adopting that $100bil number, which has no real backing, pretending that "defensive medicine" isn't a euphemism for being careful, and that the industry really did spend  nearly ten fold the payout in avoiding paying out for medical malpractice . . . that still only accounts for 4% of the total medical costs in our country.

Lets ignore the fact that we have THE HIGHEST ERROR RATE in the industrialize world and go ahead and ban victims from any compensation whatsoever. No more lawsuits, no more defensive medicine, no more payouts.  Period.   We now reduced health care spending to $2,300,000,000,000.00.  We'd still have one of the highest defect rates, worst infant mortality, and among the lowest coverages in the industrialized world and we'd still pay many multitudes more than any other nation.

So yeah, it pretty well is insignificant.  If we outright banned any remedy for medical malpractice and forbid doctors to double check or to do tests "just in case" we wouldn't even make a dent in the medical issues in this country.  We'd be sacrificing patient rights for another "cure" that does nothing to alleviate the perceived problem.

Sources:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/07/medical_payments.html

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=437&cat=8  (Kaiser Foundation Data)



3) We have seen significant Tort reform in many states, including Oklahoma.  Starting September 1st my rights as an injured party and a citizen of Oklahoma are drastically reduced.  When can I expect to see my insurance cost reduced?  When can I expect doctors fees to go down?

I haven't gotten my notice of reduced insurance cost yet.  Tort reform (used as a euphemism medical immunity from negligence) has been marching forward for well voer a decade. Can you please talk to the Defense and Medical lobbies and see when my premiums should be going down? 

[guido911]

What's happening September 1?

[guido911]

Man CF, I cannot believe you posted that nearly whiny diatribe. Did you even bother reading the study I posted regarding Texas' tort reform (and no, it was limited to medical negligence)? As for "tort reform" being a euphemism for negligence immunity for the medical industry, in connection to the health care reform effort that is true. But in general, tort reform means reforming the entire tort system. That includes negligence committed by everyone--including rotten lawyers who blow statutes of limitations or fail to follow a scheduling order and blow a deadline.

As for your assertion that "job creation numbers are totally made up", sorry you do not agree with the study. Do you have studies or other data contradicting the conclusions of that study or is that just your opinion?

As for the U.S. leading the world in medical error rate, you are correct that according to a 2005 study, patients in the U.S. complained the most about care in a comparison to five other countries. That study is absolutely consistent with the fact that U.S. citizens are sue crazy. Here is an interesting statistic that we will not hear from trial lawyers:

What is even more staggering is that of all the malpractice payment reports made world wide, over 80% of those payments were made by United States doctors with the whole rest of the world accounting for just 20% of all payments made for malpractice.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Malpractice---Medical-Malpractice-Statistics&id=138216

And to those folks and the others who rip on this country's health care system, which incidentally is a leader in medical innovation, R & D, and where a small number of its hospitals conducts more clinical trials than anywhere else in the world, I say stop coming over here in droves for the care you can't get in your own country. And for our citizens, go somewhere else.

As for you not taking med mal cases, wise call, especially in this town. Tulsans  generally appreciate the hard work of their health care providers more than trial lawyers who seek out malpractice "victims" through billboards and telephone books.   

As a note, I confess that I chuckle a bit when laypersons with no medical background can: 1) know what defensive medicine actually entails, and 2) explain it away through back-handed sarcasm. Oh well, it's a free country.

[Red Arrow]

What is even more staggering is that of all the malpractice payment reports made world wide, over 80% of those payments were made by United States doctors with the whole rest of the world accounting for just 20% of all payments made for malpractice.

Is that raw $ or adjusted for the standard/cost of living?

[nathanm]

What is even more staggering is that of all the malpractice payment reports made world wide, over 80% of those payments were made by United States doctors with the whole rest of the world accounting for just 20% of all payments made for malpractice.

Given that the vast majority of malpractice payouts is for ongoing medical bills, that makes perfect sense. There's no need for the courts to award money for medical care when there's no out of pocket cost to the injured individual.

You've inadvertently unearthed yet another reason in favor of serious health care reform in this country.

[guido911]

Given that the vast majority of malpractice payouts is for ongoing medical bills, that makes perfect sense.

I assume you are referring to medical malpractice. If so, gotta a source for that?

[nathanm]

I assume you are referring to medical malpractice. If so, gotta a source for that?

I should have said "ongoing medical bills and lost wages," but yes there are sources. Punitive damages make up only a tiny fraction of malpractice awards, at least in Texas.

· Economic damage awards have risen, from about $88 million in 1988 to $315 million in 1999. In 2000, they totaled $298 million;

· Punitive damages have remained constant at about $1 million annually. They now represent less than one-third of 1 percent of total awards, the lowest level since 1988; and

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_health_care/001470.html

In other news, punitive damage caps don't decrease malpractice premiums..

Physicians continued to suffer a rapid increase in premiums despite caps: In 19 states that implemented caps during the 12-year period, physicians suffered a 48.2 percent jump in median premiums, from $20,414 in 1991 to $30,246 in 2002. However, surprisingly, in 32 states without caps, the pace of increase was actually somewhat slower, as premiums rose by only 35.9 percent, from $22,118 to $30,056.

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/med_mal.html

Malpractice payouts as a whole have been essentially flat when adjusted for inflation for the last 20 years. There is no tort crisis except in the minds of insurance company executives who need an excuse for the rising premiums since nobody likes it when they say that they're raising premiums because their investment income is down.

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

Additionally, studies seem to indicate that the vast majority of malpractice victims never sue. Only something around 1 in 26 do, at least in New York. Moreover, almost all truly frivolous suits are thrown out and the plaintiff never sees a dime.

That said, I think it's a mistake how some people think that a doctor should essentially be God and be able to see everything that's wrong with a patient with perfect clarity and never make any mistakes. IMO there can be error without malpractice.

[cannon_fodder]

Guido, we can toss crap back and forth all day.  I'm not rally interested in doing that.  So we'll just go with your numbers.

If you total up all the expenses you claim are caused by people faking medical malpractice it totals 4% of our total medical cost.   If we banned any and all medical malpractice and forbid doctors from practicing defensive medicine we save 4%.  So what?  A 4% savings is no where near correcting the cost imbalance our system has compared to the rest of the world.

Hence, providing negligence immunity to the medical community will not solve the cost issue in health care.  If you dispute that, please fill me in because it seems clear to me.

- - -

Additionally, whenever negligence immunity for the medical community is mentioned the primary selling point is to reduce the cost of medical coverage and medical insurance.  Oklahoma has passed such legislation.  When will my bill be going down?

Of course I'm joking, because everyone knows it won't be going down.  Insurance companies will make more money, hospitals will make more money, and doctors will make more money.  Until some of the magical savings is passed on, lobbing for medical negligence immunity is akin to lobbying for an increase in earnings for the medical profession. 

- - -

And yes, the "job creation" numbers are total BS.  They calculated "savings" from cutting off rights from injured parties and assumed for every dollar saved a certain number of jobs were created.   Total fiction.

- - -

And no, calling my assertions whiny diatribe and moving on doesn't count as a retort.    There is no need to take this so personally.  I'm just referencing numbers and extrapolating from there.