Just say no to tort reform!
Jay Stevens
Jhwygirl brought up tort reform yesterday as a possible salve for rising health care costs, and quoted Governor Dean as saying it wasn’t in the bill because reformists didn’t want to fight too many enemies, including trial lawyers.
Probably what’s more likely is that Dean knows tort reform is bogus, but acted friendly towards it because the rising cost of malpractice insurance p*sses off doctors. But here’s the deal: high payouts aren’t the culprits for rising malpractice insurance costs, it’s (surprise!) private insurers who are to blame.
Some facts.
First of all, tort reform has had no effect on so-called “defensive medicine,” the over-treating of a patient (with loads o’ unnecessary procedures) to avoid malpractice suits:
A team at the University of Alabama looked into this last year. Their survey of studies related to malpractice insurance, defensive medicine and consumer health insurance premiums looked at 27 states with limits on non-economic damages, including Texas.
Their conclusion – “Tort reforms have not led to health care cost savings for consumers” – was published in the December issue of Health Sciences Review.
“It’s had a really small effect, or else it doesn’t seem to change defensive medicine,” said Michael Morrisey, a professor of health economics and health insurance and the director of the university’s Lister Hill Center for Health Policy.
(Update: A reader emailed and noted that periodical carrying the U of Alabama report was in “Health Services Research.” Here’s the citation:
Morrisey, M.A., Kilgore, M.L., and Nelson, L.J., “Medical Malpractice Reform and Employer Sponsored Health Insurance Premiums,” Health Services Research 43[6]:2124-2142 [December 2008])
(One possible answer as to why “defensive medicine” still proceeds can be found in Atul Gawande’s oft-cited piece, “The Cost Conundrum.” It’s the private hospitals seeking profit spurring on their doctors to pursue expensive treatments.)
Secondly, tort reform has no effect on the cost of malpractice insurance. Even insurance-friendly studies show variable outcomes in capping non-economic damages in malpractice cases. But nowhere is there evidence these lowered malpractice rates translate into lower healthcare costs, just higher profits for insurers and healthcare providers.
And getting away from economics, what kind of effect does tort reform have on patient care? According to Matt Jerzyk, quoting The Journal of the American Medical Association, “medical errors are the THIRD leading cause of death in the United States.” This problem is so serious and pervasive – yet rarely discussed – that Hearst newspaper reporters banded together to create “Dead by Mistake,” a website dedicated to medical errors and promoting better medical reporting procedures to help identify and avoid common mistakes.
Nowhere in this site do reporters advocate giving health care providers a disincentive to offer good patient care. If anything, the incentive for doctors to treat patients with procedures instead of patient care likely contributes to medical malpractice. That is, it’s likely the “free market” principles of private hospitals contributes to poor patient care.
As the evidence piles up, it’s readily apparent tort reform achieves only limited benefits, and none for you or me:
It’s apparent that tort reform has limited benefits, and only for certain parties: Tort reform serves Republican political interests by taking money out of trial lawyers’ pockets – traditional supporters of the Democratic party. Tort reform servers private insurers by increasing their profits without any corresponding increase in service, and protecting insurers and healthcare providers from the people they have wronged, often fatally.
And that’s the thing, isn’t it? Civil suits are the last recourse individual citizens have to punish large corporations for wrongdoing. Laws protect the big fish. Regulatory legislation is riddled with loopholes for corporate lawyers to steer their massive ships-of-commerce through. Big industry can afford almost exclusive access to our lawmakers (as evidenced by our current state of health care reform). Crack down on lawsuits and you take the last legal protections for the little guy against corporate America.
Tort reform = bad.
-
1
Pingback on Sep 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
[...] cases goes down, premiums continue to rise. Indeed, the only proven correlation with tort reform is increased profitability for insurers. Mind you, doctors are required by law to carry malpractice insurance; because they are wealthy, [...]
-
2
Pingback on Sep 10th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
[...] Nor is it correct to say that torts alone are responsible for the rising cost of malpractice insurance. In state after state after state, there is simply no correlation: as the number of cases goes down, premiums continue to rise. Indeed, the only proven correlation with tort reform is increased profitability for insurers. [...]
-
3
Pingback on Sep 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am
[...] cases goes down, premiums continue to rise. Indeed, the only proven correlation with tort reform is increased profitability for insurers. As I mentioned in SoCalJD's thread, Obama would be foolish not to cash in on the Republican [...]
-
4
Pingback on Oct 6th, 2010 at 1:55 am
[...] Nor is it correct to say that torts alone are responsible for the rising cost of malpractice insurance. In state after state after state, there is simply no correlation: as the number of cases goes down, premiums continue to rise. Indeed, the only proven correlation with tort reform is increased profitability for insurers. [...]
-
5
Pingback on Mar 18th, 2011 at 9:02 am
[...] Nor is it correct to say that torts alone are responsible for the rising cost of malpractice insurance. In state after state after state, there is simply no correlation: as the number of cases goes down, premiums continue to rise. Indeed, the only proven correlation with tort reform is increased profitability for insurers. [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… Buzz Feedback on Rape is not “knucklehead… lizard19 on Rape is not “knucklehead…
August 28, 2009 at 12:07 pm
More of the same: deregulation. And a frontal attack on democratic principles and the Constitution.
August 28, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Jay – My wife was a paralegal for 17 years and all you have to do is talk to people who actually work in the legal system to know the whole tort reform thing is bullshit. It’s VERY tough to get settlements and almost impossible to get big settlements unless your client is basically toast for the rest of their life — and even then, the enormous cost to hire experts, have endless tests done, and fight the legions of insurance company lawyers means you have to hire a trial lawyer with significant resources to commit with no guarantee they’ll ever get reimbursed and then maybe, just maybe, you might get a settlement.
August 28, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Good point, GO: the cost of pursuing a lawsuit is pretty high under normal circumstances. In some states — like Texas — their “tort reform” is to make pursuing a case so expensive and convoluted that most people can’t afford the time or money to go after folks that wronged them. Tho’ I suppose the fat cats can easily have their lawyers do the paperwork….
August 28, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Hm…I don’t know if I agree with you jhwygirl that tort reform is equivalent to single-payer health insurance, that they should both be on the table for discussion, etc & co.
I mean…where do you draw the line? There’s loads of evidence pointing to single-payer health insurance as a meaningful way to reduce costs and open access to health care. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no evidence showing that tort reform either reduces cost or allows more people access to health care. Why would we include it in a discussion on health care reform?
August 28, 2009 at 3:24 pm
And what about being !le to sue you HMO when they screw you? That’s tort reform too.
And since when was Howard known for playing nice and pleasantries with anyone? I seriously doubt he was being patronizing.
Everything is fair for discussion. We can’t call for single-payer discussion and poo-poo tort reform talk. I never said it would solve it – but it might make an integral group feel that it was an open and fair dicussion because it was at the table.
August 28, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Who wasn’t having an honest discussion here? Tort reform as pushed by the GOP is a very bad idea. I mean, there’s absolutely no evidence supporting it as a means to reduce health care costs…
August 28, 2009 at 3:40 pm
the bill’s name escapes me right now and can’t think after a long work day of how to google it. but if the ENRISA ??? act can be amended to allow us to sue the bastards i would be all for that tort reform. in fact, it might be more effective at making the health insurance companies act with more fairness and integrity toward the consumer than the putrid over-ripe sausage being ground up in baucus’s basement right now.
in the future senator (if you have any after the way you’ve handled this mess),when the president of your party delivers a bill to you, i would suggest processing it a little quicker next time. you don’t want to wait until the outside edges turn green. that only draws annoying yellow jackets, blow-flies and such – like corporate astroturfers and right wing nuts.
August 29, 2009 at 3:08 am
I’m in favor of tort reform only if it means I don’t have to learn torts (i.e. tort revolution).
Seriously, it’s like 10 freakin’ briefs every class, and the rules are always buried in pseudo reasoning. Also, it’s bullshit that affirmative defenses don’t transfer on intentional torts when intent transfers. Also, Brett Favre sucks.
September 2, 2009 at 6:17 am
The cost of tort reform is hyped.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0#t3
The big insurance consulting firms puts tort cost as 2% of GDP. What percentage of that is “frivolous” and of that percent how much is the result of corporate “frivolous” lawsuits.
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=TILL/USA/2006/200603/2005_Tort.pdf
Of that 2% what percentage is from “frivolous
suits and of that percentage what are “frivolous” corporate lawsuits.
The Reigel v. Medtronic supreme court ruling eliminated all lawsuits against medical device manufacturers giving them corporate immunity. I am not even allowed discovery to determine if there was fraud or negligence in the death of my 16 year old son.
robertsfight.com
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=113522439153
September 2, 2009 at 9:42 am
thanks mark for the timely info and sorry to hear about your son. this country has no business creating laws making any company immune from lawsuits period. a court of law is the only way we citizens can get justice.
no wonder the health industry (manufacturers and insurers) are so blatant about ripping us off. we have no real way to punish them for bad behavior. it will only get worse until we repeal erisa. hell no to tort reform and let’s abolish erisa!