Why Medical Malpractice Reform Is Off Limits

wsj.com:

Eliminating defensive medicine could save upwards of $200 billion in health-care costs annually, according to estimates by the American Medical Association and others. The cure is a reliable medical malpractice system that patients, doctors and the general public can trust.

Read the whole story: wsj.com

Comments

[blingbling65943]

Wow, I am really impressed by how many people here are informed and knowledgeable about the facts

Good for all of you.

Tort Reform will do absolutely nothing to reduce the cost of health care, and will only hurt those who have already been hurt the most.

[Sam1234567]

Liberal logic.

Trial lawyers good.

Insurance companies bad.

[research]

Conservative logic: Serfs don't matter. Robber Barons good. Focus on the unimportant to fool the serfs.

100,000's of people are harmed and killed by actual malpractice.

Total direct costs of malpractice is less than 1% see my link below.

[Durango]

I don't know the numbers, but most people who sue for malpractice do so because the doctors will never admit a mistake and accept responsibility for their mistakes.

The other half of the equation is that if we had universal health care it would be the most effective Tort Reform available.

Again i don't know the numbers. But most of the people I know who have sued, did so because they had no other way to pay their medical bills.

Universal Health Care would also reduce the costs of Workmans Comp tremendously.

[blue53]

Thirty years in medicine--this is what you learn:
Physicians are the largest consumers of health care. There is no incentive fo them to reduce the tests and procedures they order--they are not paying--neither are most of the patients. The increase in physician self referral is obscene. Physicians have done almost nothing to stop the deaths caused by medical errors, or hospital infections. A government report on these issues, written in 2000 reads pretty much the same in 2007.
Malpractice cases are down, as are payouts. Tote reform is a red herring. Malpractice insurance is provided by INSURANCE COMPANIES. Perhaps one of the largest lobbys in this country, the AMA, should take the costs up with the insurance companies. Perhaps pulling their money out of stocks in insurance, drug companies, and medical suppliers would get the attention of these companies. But no, they would rather whine about the cost of their education, the cost of doing business, and the mean patients and lawyers who want nothing more than to sue them. They have had plenty of time to addresses these problems--but the gravy train has been too profitable, not for all, but a lot of them.
A true investment in eliminating the infections and deaths is not likely to happen either. One can only assume that the profits driven by re-admission, more procedures, increased rehab time, more drugs--a lot of it going into the pockets of physicians and hospitals-- is too large of an incentive.

[ldmason45]

I'm a RN who has worked sugery for 25t years. I will agree with you on the point that doctors opened themselves up to all of this by not policing themselves. They would see but look the other way when it came to their fellow physicians who were incompentent. Everyone whipered but did nothing to stop it. When it came to an outbreak of infection suspected to originate in surgery they would try to keep it hush hush instead of dragging out the Chiefs, doctors and OR staff to get to the bottom of it. The only concern was the hospitals liability. When ANY group or organization does not police it's own they will eventually implode.

[philosopherkingtomas]

limit ALL lawsuits to a million to the injured party anything over goes to CHARITY !
lawyer greed will die down quickly pardon the puns.

[Notawingnut]

Studies indicate that tort reform could save a maximum of 3% of the cost of healthcare in the country. MAXIMUM. I absolutely dispise lawyers, but I've seen first hand the care people get when they don't have insurance. We've had pilot programs all over the country. They're called states. In the states that have adopted tort reform laws healthcare costs have been virtually unchanged.

We can do tort reform if it's what the majority of the people want, but don't think it's some kind of silver bullet for healthcare reform that those evil democrats are trying to block to look out for their special interests. It lines the pockets of insurance companies, plain and simple.

[Levonsky]

After they pass laws to limit executive pay.

[ldmason45]

This point is really moot. 45% of practicing doctors have said that they would retire if government run healthcare goes through. On my last visit to my OB/GYN he told me he had quit delivering babies due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. I live in a state that is "malpractice heaven" and we've lost so many doctors that entire counties only have a few physicians covering them. My primary physician's group of approx. 125 doctors quit accepting Medicare/Medicaid last year due to cost of lge volume of paper work and low reimbursement. Add millions more to the mix and we've got a problem. Keep living in your fantasy world.

[euthman]

1) If 45% of physicians say they would retire under national health care, they are making an idle threat. Even those in "low" paid specialties know good and well they could not achieve anywhere near that income level outside of medicine.

2) Worldwide there is an unlimited supply of doctors. All it takes is for the Federal government to let more of them immigrate. Already we have an enormous number of foreign-educated doctors in practice here, and they perform just as well as we American-educated MDs.

3) Much of the care given by doctors today can be done perfectly well by nurse practitioners and other physician extenders under doctors' supervision.

4) Finally, the issue of malpractice claims would be eliminated altogether under a government-run national care plan. The government would simply limit claims by statute and resolve legitimate claims without litigation, just as is done now under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

[econ1]

# 4 could be implemented under the current system today.

[TXfemmom]

Ridiculous. Most of those doctors are too greed to quit, believe me. We should pass reform, and then begin to underwrite medical education for doctors and nurses. Take the cream of the crop only, and they must understand that because their education is going to be provided by the people of this country, they will owe them their gratitude and their goal after graduating is to serve.

Believe me, encourage situations such as the Mayo Clinic, where every doctor is on salary and excellence is required of them, and they are routinely ranked number one or two in every field, yet they spend far less and get better results than do the other money-grubbing physicians. It could be done on large scales in large cities and then have smaller scale, but successful branches in smaller cities and towns. Believe me, the guys at Mayo are not paupers but their first thoughts and requirements are patient care, instead of how can I see the most patients in the least time and get paid the most for giving poor care?

[ldmason45]

One of my best friends just graduated and took her boards in general surgery. She has over $200,000 in tuition she'd probably love help paying back.

[ILibertine]

Hence the relative lack of doctors in countries that provide healthcare, I suppose. It's a red-herring argument.

[Levonsky]

All I need to know is that if the gop is for it it must be a load of crap.
That's all they got to sell.
Same as with that Estate tax bullcrap.

[leonyc]

It's not the same. Obviously, GOP is using this as one of their selling points. But just because they are doing, does not mean it's not a worthy cause. I don't see any logical reason not to pursue the malpractice reform. After all, several states did it. And it's free - you just limit the malpractice award and make it more difficult to sue doctors. No need to spend any money. There's no downside, in my view.

[ldmason45]

I agree. The problem with tort reform is that its a good idea that happened to be presented by the repubs. Too many dems and some repubs not only belong to the Trial Lawyers Assoc. but depend on them to donate to their campaigns. It's just special interest just like all the other high powered lobbying groups. We need fewer lawyers in politics I think. It would be nice to have someone in office who knew a little about how to balance a checkbook and run a country. Common sense, honesty and integrity would be a bonus. By the way, cute dog.

[blueken]

Tort reform is a distraction. The $200 billion figure is somewhat inflated. The last two reliable studies put malpractice expense at 1% of total health care cost. It is also helpful to note that it is part of a $3 trillion dollar health care industrial complex. While I support tort refrom in malpractice, it should be low fruit left for when the major problems have been solved. Not used as a roadblock to progress.

[leonyc]

It's not a distraction because the fear of the legal action drives many doctors to performing the unnecessary procedures. Also, certain doctors (for example, OGYYNs) pay exorbitant malpractice premiums that make this very needed medical practice very expensive. After all, most women want to have children, and the fact that fewer OBGYN doctors take any insurance because of the high insurance premiums is a real problem for many regular people. In fact, it was hard for my wife to find OBGYN practitioner that takes our insurance, even though we a have a good PPO plan.

[TXfemmom]

Don't look at one field, and besides, the insurance companies who provide the malpractice have the highest returns and the biggest profits of all insurance companies. That is never addressed in the arguments on malpractice reform. REFORM THE MALPRACTICE INSURANCE SYSTEM FIRST BY ADDRESSING THE EXORBITANT RETURNS WHICH RESULT FROM EXTREMELY HIGH PREMIUMS AND LOW MALPRACTICE AWARDS.

[Jason G]

WSJ Op Ed page is as right wing nonsense as you can get. Whatever they champion, you champion the TOTAL OPPOSITE POSITION and you will be correct 90% of the time.

And now that Murdoch owns it, I don't expect it to ever change.

[econ1]

Okay...let's have more lawyers and give them more money and have fewer doctors and give them less.

Problem solved!

[thegreenhornet]

the problem with articles like these is they ignore two critical facts. first, no malpractice case can proceed without the testimony of a doctor willing to state under oath that the standard of care had been violated. this same doctor charges exhorbitant fees driving up the administrative cost of suit. the single biggest expense is the doctor's fees. second, the trial lawyers do not determine whether malpractice has occured. rather, that is a decision by jurors -- citizens -- with the advice of the doctor/expert witness. in short, stop attacking the messenger!

[KB2000]

Why is Huff Post posting garbage like this? I don't want to address the entire article, so just a few quick points.

Firstly, the author complains that roughly half of the lawsuit rewards go to the lawyers. My understanding is that this is a standard fee in any type of lawsuit, or at least certainly within normal bounds.

Then the author complains that lawsuits are so expensive that many low-level malpractice lawsuits aren't financially feasible. So now the author's complaint seems that there aren't enough malpractice lawsuits, instead of too many????

Then the mention of John Edwards winning lawsuits for cerebral palsey caused by birth complications, then cites a statistic that only 10% of these cases are actually the fault of the doctor... a complete non-sequitor. Those two factoids are totally unrelated, at least so far as the author has demonstrated here.

COMPLETE RUBBISH. For good information on how malpractice lawsuits have a trivial effect on the exploding cost of medical care, look to PUBLIC CITIZEN for good information:
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7497

[JeffreyHF]

This is a classic canard. First, all medical malpractice settlements, verdicts, attorney fees, and administrative costs, amount to one half of one penny of the health care dollar.Second, medical malpractice "tort reform" already exists in the majority of states, yet health costs continue to rise in those states at the same rate as states that have retained victims' rights.The practice of medicine is inherently intrastate, yet the same Republicans who espouse "states' rights" as political doctrine are asking the Federal government to preempt those rights to protect malpractice insurers and negligent health care providers from responsibility.Uncompensated victims will have their resultant health care costs shifted to us taxpayers, from the offending tortfeasors and insurers. Third, "defensive medicine" is really good medicine, and is what doctors choose for their friends and families. Many unnecessary tests and procedures are conducted out of health care provider greed, or self-interest, rather due to concerns over malpractice. Fourth, the victims of malpractice and their families will bear the additional injury caused by lack of access to the courts, compounding their victimization. Fifth, the myth of "frivolous lawsuits" is simply that. All states and the Federal courts have procedures for fining lawyers and litigants, and dismissing their cases, if adjudged to be "frivolous". And no plaintiff's lawyer makes money from such cases. In fact, he/she spends and loses hard earned money and valuable time if a meritless case is taken and pursued.

[ldmason45]

How long have you been a practicing physician ?

[antifluff]

Tort reform is not the ONLY method to reduce health care costs. It is one method that can be implemented almost immediately, with little cost to the taxpayer or medical industry. Reform does not have to be elimination of lawsuits, but a more reasonable approach. If an illegal alien is treated in an emergency room (that should happen once and then they should be sent back to their country of origin), that person that did not pay for that care should not be able to sue ANY medical business in the USA. If a person dies and has a life insurance policy of $20,000 (their own declared wish for remaining family), the health industry should not have to pay in the millions of dollars. If a person is treated and ends up needing care for the rest of their life, the medical facility should not have to pay more than health care costs and a living allowance (not tens of millions of dollars). Lawyers might have to take less for doing the cases. These are not ideas that are unreasonable or hard to implement. When we are talking about health care costs, everything should be considered.

[bolivare]

Absolute bull. California already has a cap on malpractice lawsuits as well as Texas and their malpractice insurance rates are still rising.
Hell, those were stories here on HP about a couple of days ago.
So no, tort reform will do nothing to curb these rates.

[TXfemmom]

You are absolutely correct. TX gutted malpractice to the point where a doctor can do virtually anything and get away with it, yet the state continues to lead the country in premiums. IT did not work, and people get their lives destroyed and have no means to get it addressed. Yet we keep hearing the GOP keep harping about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Where is the personal responsibility of physicians who harm patients?

[bolivare]

Sorry, misunderstood your message. I agree.