McCain's healthcare remedy: 'Tort Reform' which has not lowered health care costs in a single state

[flpoljunkie]

From 'Seducing the States with Health Reform'

Among the army of zombie talking points deployed to battle health care reform are canards about "tort reform." For years the Right and its corporate sponsors forestalled health care reform by blaming rising health care costs on out-of-control malpractice suits. In fact, medical malpractice damage awards are less than one percent of the total cost of U.S. healthcare.

Limiting citizens' Seventh Amendment rights to file personal injury lawsuits has been a winning issue for the Republican Party since the 1980s. "Tort reform" not only protects big corporations from responsibility and screws the little guy -- a win/win right there -- but it also turns trial lawyers (who tend to vote for Democrats) into the scapegoats for many of the nation's ills.

Oh, and about those lowered health care costs, stimulated economies and new jobs? More than half of the states have passed tort reform laws, some more than 20 years ago, so we have a number of "laboratories" in which to see what tort reform really does. Let's take a look.

Fact: Tort reform has not lowered health care costs in a single state.

Limiting malpractice suits usually does lower the cost of medical malpractice insurance, which pleases doctors, but these savings are not passed on to the health care consumer. Tort reform doesn't appear even slow down the rate at which health care costs are increasing.

In April Newt Gingrich penned an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he claimed tort "States that have enacted tort-reform measures have significantly improved access to health care, reduced costs, and strengthened economies." As Exhibit A he trotted out a comprehensive tort reform law enacted by Texas in 2003.

The problem with that picture is that health care costs in Texas not only continued to rise after 2003; they rose more than in most of the rest of the country. In 2008, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that Texans enjoyed the third fastest increase in health insurance premiums in the nation. And for many years Texas has led the nation in the percentage of its citizens without health insurance. The 2003 tort reform didn't change that.

more here...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mahabarbara/2009/06/seducing-the-states-with-tort.php

[prolesunited]

1. And when the cost of your care exceeds the max you can collect

on a lawsuit, do you think the magnanimous insurance companies are going to let you have lifetime cancer care for $1 million or let you die for $200,000?

[chelsea0011]

2. That was one of the subjects Claire McCaskell (right name, I hope) brought up at her town hall

She asked how many were on Medicare. People raised their hands. Then she asked if people were happy about tort reform. Loud cheering. Then she asked how many saw their rates go down. Silence.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Senator McCaskill was great on this subject at her televised town hall. Folks need reeducation.

The Republicans have lied about tort reform for so long and so well.

[burning rain]

3. Tort "reform" has a natural attractiveness to Republicans.

It puts the screws to trial lawyers, largely a Democratic constituency, and caters to industry, insurance, and medical doctors -- largely Republican constituencies.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Well put, burning rain!

[treestar]

4. And why would it?

It's not as if medical malpractice is so often involved in a course of treatment.

And not every suit is groundless, as they would have you believe.

[ItNerd4life]

7. Then why does Europe have it?

They have a loser pays system. It obviously has some benefit if they have it.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Only those who could afford to lose would be able to sue for redress. Is this what we want?

[busymom]

8. I totally disagree...

I'm sorry, I can't jump on board with this one. Tort reform HAS to be a part of this. There is no other country with socialized/govt. healthcare where you can sue if your farts are green and win the lottery.

Health care costs WOULD go down and access to care would improve.

Example.

OB/GYN here pays 300,000/year for her malpractice...which is, btw, well more than her take-home salary. She must make this money by charging more and calculating her risks when she sees patients. She sees less medicaid because they are more likely to sue in this region and passes on many of the escalating costs to her patients.

Another doc we know was recently named as a part of a lawsuit. The woman developed an odd infection that was initially undiagnosed...It was then appropriately diagnosed by this physician and she was treated. She has no lasting injury or ill effect but sued over the time that it took to get a diagnosis and treatment and the emotional stress that it caused. The hospital settled not because of wrong-doing but because they didn't want to get caught up in a legal battle that would tie up time and money. Tylenol might be a little bit more expensive at the hospital this year until that little sum is out of the way.

Of course, my husband is currently treating a patient from Alberta who had been on the waiting list for a heart bypass for 2 years with shortness of breath, edema and chest pain...his wife transferred to a US company and he was able to schedule his surgery here within 3 weeks of seeing the cardiologist.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Let's FIX it all... Why are you guys so eager to support lawyers who are out to make health care more expensive by filing many lawsuits that are frivolous?

[flpoljunkie]

9. Why do you not believe that 'tort reform' has failed to lower health care costs?

[busymom]

10. Firs

Tort reform hasn't *really happened* The minor changes have opened other loopholes. BTW, I'm not suggesting that in cases of true and severe negligence that there shouldn't be recourse.

Also, one of the reasons that TX does so poorly in terms of healthcare costs happens to be that there are so many uninsured...not because of tort reform or lack thereof. TX is one of the states with the highest number of uninsured and highest medical costs to boot...MN, by contrast has one of the highest numbers of insured individuals and lowest costs.

This speaks more to a need for some form of universal healthcare than on the issue of Tort reform.

Frivolous lawsuits have to go.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Harvard Study Casts Doubt on Claims That Medical Malpractice is Plagued by Frivolous Lawsuits

Study Casts Doubt on Claims That the Medical Malpractice System Is Plagued By Frivolous Lawsuits
For immediate release: May 10, 2006

Boston, MA – The debate over medical malpractice litigation, which raged during the last presidential campaign, continues as a hot-button political and health care issue in the U.S. The Senate is expected to vote soon on legislation to impose a federal cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice suits, following on similar bills that passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate last year. One popular justification for tort reform is the claim that “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits—those lacking evidence of substandard care, treatment-related injury, or both—enrich plaintiffs’ attorneys and drive up health care costs. A new study by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital challenges the view that frivolous litigation is rampant and expensive.

The researchers analyzed past malpractice claims to judge the volume of meritless lawsuits and determine their outcomes. Their findings suggest that portraits of a malpractice system riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown. Although nearly one third of claims lacked clear-cut evidence of medical error, most of these suits did not receive compensation. In fact, the number of meritorious claims that did not get paid was actually larger than the group of meritless claims that were paid. The findings appear in the May 11, 2006 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Some critics have suggested that the malpractice system is inundated with groundless lawsuits, and that whether a plaintiff recovers money is like a random ‘lottery,’ virtually unrelated to whether the claim has merit,” said lead author David Studdert, associate professor of law and public health at HSPH. “These findings cast doubt on that view by showing that most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury, and that claims with merit are far more likely to be paid than claims without merit.”

more here...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press05102006.html

[iceman66]

11. SINGLE-PAYER would be the best "tort reform" possible

because it would remove future medical expenses from recoverable damages in any lawsuit - think about it.

Also, there is no reason why malpractice insurance for doctors could not also be nationalized, which would significantly lower premiums.

[Ajaye]

14. Another strawman

I'd like to see anyone here try to succeed in collecting on a frivolous medical malpractice suit. They certainly don't exist in Florida. There are many, many preconditions before you even get to file a lawsuit. Between the costs of litigating a med mal case and the difficulties of getting through the weeding out process and now the fact that quite a large number of doctors go "bare" medical malpractice is hardly a bonanza for greedy lawyers. It's a tough, tough road to hoe and lawyers cannot afford to take on "frivolous" cases.

Let's look at Texas as a case in point. The most draconian tort reform measures.

Medical costs did not go down.

Medical malpractice insurance premiums did not go down.

Hmmm. Wonder why? Could it be that a. medical malpractice awards are an infintesimal percentage of medical costs b. malpractice insurers will continue to charge the highest amount they can get away with. c. "defensive medicine" is also cautious, concerned medicine. That we don't know a test is unecessary until it's done? If the outcome of the test were different, it would have been perfectly necessary? d. Medical costs are high for other reasons than medical malpractice lawsuits?

Enough of buying into this canard about tort reform. It's not a serious part of the equation.

[boppers]

15. "medical malpractice damage awards"... what's the total cost, beyond awards?

"usually does lower the cost"...."has not lowered health care costs"...

Lots of spin in this one. Any sources out there with empirical data on actual economic impacts, across the board? Would it save 1%? .01%? Cost .001%? What is that in dollars?