“Medical Malpractice Payouts Not Driving Up Health Costs: Study”
Then the article goes on to say:
“But real cost reductions, he says, will come from reducing the overuse of diagnostic tests and procedures.”
(Which are one of the huge side effects of an irrational legal system)
They also say:
“In their review of malpractice payouts over $1 million, the researchers say those payments added up to roughly $1.4 billion a year, making up far less than 1 percent of national medical expenditures in the United States.”
And they don’t report on the cost of all those lawsuits and settlements under $1,000,000 which probably add billions more to healthcare costs. This study is a joke.
Reasonable tort reform would save billions and billions every year which over time amounts to trillions.
I agree Dave. Look at who did the study. If Medical Malpractice claims are so insignificant, why was Tort Reform left out on Obamacare? Why do doctors practice defensive medicine and order test after test if they aren’t worried about being sued? Malpractice underwriters look at the legal climate in the state the doctor is in and price coverage accordingly. In Texas, we did have Tort Reform on Malpractice and rates came down dramatically. No wonder doctors have moved to the state. Some years ago, lawyers ran most of the doctors out of Mississippi with their frivolous suits so people had to go to a neighboring state to get treated.
Something else they don’t appear to mention is defense costs. I believe the total costs to defend these malpractice claims far exceed the total payout in settlements.
Good point Ryan. Forgot to think about that. In many cases the doctors and their insurers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending cases they ultimately “win” but are still out those hundreds of thousands of dollars. One way to better determine how much our legal environment adds to the cost of healthcare in this country is to add up all the malpractice premiums which every medical professional and institution pays each year. I’m sure that would be billions and billions of dollars. Add that to the cost of defensive medicine and one has a true cost. The above mentioned report is not worth the paper it is written on.
Dave, when you have a Congress full of lawyers who made their living suing people before they got elected, there was no way they were going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and put in Tort Reform into Obamacare. The Trial Lawyers are a huge lobby as well and big contributors to the Democratic Party. Defendants Lawyers also like the present system since they are often on retainer for their work defending doctors.
Exactly Agent. And topping that list as mentioned below was that scumbag John Edwards who nearly became Vice President of the United States. Truly scary.
Yes, Edwards was truly a piece of work and he knew how to charm juries with his $200 haircut and dramatics. I heard of a case where he told the jury that he heard the deceased from the grave telling him to seek justice for him. My guess is that he will run for office again like Spitzer, Weiner and the other cheaters/perverts. He may have to move to California though to be elected again.
May 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also scary was that we had Al Gore a heartbeat away from being President for 8 years. He is the scumbag to end all scumbags.
May 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t think Democrats have any monopoly on lawyers. There are plenty to go around for BOTH parties!
The article is not misleading. Like the article says, it is the fear of being sued which drives costs, not the payouts from such lawsuits. No doctor wants to be sued. I have been saying for years that the focus on malpractice settlement caps is entirely misplaced. Rather than worrying about the occasional frivolous multi-million dollar award we should be focused on preventing frivolous claims from making it very far within the legal system. I would like to see malpractice allegations forced through some sort of medical review panel who can evaluate each case on its merits – the panel would function similar to a grand jury, but would contain medical professionals who would be better equipped to evaluate whether there is a potential breach of professional standards. I admit it’s just a concept at this point, but if the panels could be selected in such a way that they are truly unbiased, I think it could be a workable idea.
Sorry, you’re wrong youngin’. John Edwards that slimy ambulance chaser became rich by alleging every child born with nearly any kind of defect was born that way due to medical malpractice despite a certain percentage of all babies unfortunately are born that way. But thanks to our twisted system where a charming, but scuzzbag lawyer can charm an uninformed jury (much the same way he charmed his mistress out of her panties while his wife lay at home dying of cancer) out of thinking clearly and insisting somebody needs to pay when they see a poor malformed baby, despite any fault. Our legal system is broken, it costs us billions and billions of dollars in nearly all parts of our lives and mostly in medical malpractice.
For every dollar spent to settle medical professional liability claims in the U.S., via settlement or verdict, an additional $.65 is spent on defense costs. (expense:indemnity ratio) Product liability runs closer to 95% for defense.
The referenced study we’re discussing obviously misses the lawsuits in which the hospital defendant assumes liability for the named co-defendant doctor(s) so that he doesn’t have to be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. It is generally the docs who keep the beds filled; ie, large revenue generators.
Med-mal defense counsel works up and defends most all cases, even those meritorious claims of clear liability, and then settles them on the courtroom steps after they’ve made their income. Therein lies a great deal of the waste … and this tactic is of no help to the hospitals, the claimant or the plaintiff attorney. As the frequency of med-mal claims has diminished, and defense firms fight for cases, the abuse by defense counsel has increased. Inexperienced/apathetic claims examiners at the insurance companies and in-house managed self-insured hospitals often do not have the wherewithal to take control of the claims process as they should.
Yes Charles, it has been my experience in over 30 years in this business that insurance companies typically do not like to fight cases because of all the defense billable hours no matter how good their case is. That is why so many cases are decided on – What will it take to make this case go away? They then bandy around numbers until a settlement is reached. The loss goes on the insureds records and the next renewal sees a substantial rate increase.
I doubt this study will help rescind damage caps and the hurdles medical negligence victims must jump through to pursue justice. Tort reformists are likely to ignore the Public Citizen study and argue doctors order too many tests and procedures in the name of defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits. However, does that make any sense? Doctors unethically ordering tests or performing procedures that are unnecessary, and penny-pinching insurance companies who only care about profits paying out large sums of money to support this conduct?
If doctors truly are acting unethically by ordering unnecessary tests and performing unnecessary procedures, shouldn’t those doctors be held accountable?
Isn’t it more realistic, and reasonable, to believe that as technology improves and patient expectations increase, doctors are using as many tools as are available? Granted, some insurance companies require doctors to order certain tests before other, more definitive tests, but the reality is patients want answers. Patients demand to know what is wrong with them and, if there is something to treat, patients want it treated. Long gone are the days of “wait and see”, or “it is probably benign”, or “I believe it is nothing to worry about”.
As long as technology improves, patient education increases, and public dissemination of information continues, patients want definitive answers and curative treatment.
“If doctors truly are acting unethically by ordering unnecessary tests and performing unnecessary procedures, shouldn’t those doctors be held accountable?”
Such tests are not necessarily unethical. There are generally prescribed tests based on certain symptoms which doctors should prescribe. Additional tests can be made at the Doctor’s discretion which thanks to frivolous lawsuits, liberal judges and dumb juries are done when generally not needed. That costs money.
“As long as technology improves, patient education increases, and public dissemination of information continues, patients want definitive answers and curative treatment.”
AS long as somebody else pays for it and by the way, don’t increase my rates.
So Dave, what do you think about Obama appointing the woman at the heart of the IRS scandal to be the enforcement chief for Obamacare? What could possibly go wrong with that appointment? She should be prosecuted and put in jail for her deeds and she will be going after people who don’t sign up for the precious Obamacare.
Very misleading headline:
“Medical Malpractice Payouts Not Driving Up Health Costs: Study”
Then the article goes on to say:
“But real cost reductions, he says, will come from reducing the overuse of diagnostic tests and procedures.”
(Which are one of the huge side effects of an irrational legal system)
They also say:
“In their review of malpractice payouts over $1 million, the researchers say those payments added up to roughly $1.4 billion a year, making up far less than 1 percent of national medical expenditures in the United States.”
And they don’t report on the cost of all those lawsuits and settlements under $1,000,000 which probably add billions more to healthcare costs. This study is a joke.
Reasonable tort reform would save billions and billions every year which over time amounts to trillions.
I agree Dave. Look at who did the study. If Medical Malpractice claims are so insignificant, why was Tort Reform left out on Obamacare? Why do doctors practice defensive medicine and order test after test if they aren’t worried about being sued? Malpractice underwriters look at the legal climate in the state the doctor is in and price coverage accordingly. In Texas, we did have Tort Reform on Malpractice and rates came down dramatically. No wonder doctors have moved to the state. Some years ago, lawyers ran most of the doctors out of Mississippi with their frivolous suits so people had to go to a neighboring state to get treated.
Something else they don’t appear to mention is defense costs. I believe the total costs to defend these malpractice claims far exceed the total payout in settlements.
Good point Ryan. Forgot to think about that. In many cases the doctors and their insurers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending cases they ultimately “win” but are still out those hundreds of thousands of dollars. One way to better determine how much our legal environment adds to the cost of healthcare in this country is to add up all the malpractice premiums which every medical professional and institution pays each year. I’m sure that would be billions and billions of dollars. Add that to the cost of defensive medicine and one has a true cost. The above mentioned report is not worth the paper it is written on.
Dave, when you have a Congress full of lawyers who made their living suing people before they got elected, there was no way they were going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and put in Tort Reform into Obamacare. The Trial Lawyers are a huge lobby as well and big contributors to the Democratic Party. Defendants Lawyers also like the present system since they are often on retainer for their work defending doctors.
Exactly Agent. And topping that list as mentioned below was that scumbag John Edwards who nearly became Vice President of the United States. Truly scary.
Just listen to this left wing Democrat address the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9HcWd5ifBA&list=FL9lJuRBjktDPY_TeM76IBSw&index=29
Yes, Edwards was truly a piece of work and he knew how to charm juries with his $200 haircut and dramatics. I heard of a case where he told the jury that he heard the deceased from the grave telling him to seek justice for him. My guess is that he will run for office again like Spitzer, Weiner and the other cheaters/perverts. He may have to move to California though to be elected again.
Also scary was that we had Al Gore a heartbeat away from being President for 8 years. He is the scumbag to end all scumbags.
I don’t think Democrats have any monopoly on lawyers. There are plenty to go around for BOTH parties!
Look around in Congress and politics. Dems are generally lawyers: Clintons, Obamas, Edwards, Durbin, etc.
While Republicans are generally former bus. people: Romneys, Bushes, Daniels, etc. The Dems have a near monopoly on lawyers and the lawyers have the DEms in their back pocket. Just listen to Howard Dean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9HcWd5ifBA&list=FL9lJuRBjktDPY_TeM76IBSw&index=29
The article is not misleading. Like the article says, it is the fear of being sued which drives costs, not the payouts from such lawsuits. No doctor wants to be sued. I have been saying for years that the focus on malpractice settlement caps is entirely misplaced. Rather than worrying about the occasional frivolous multi-million dollar award we should be focused on preventing frivolous claims from making it very far within the legal system. I would like to see malpractice allegations forced through some sort of medical review panel who can evaluate each case on its merits – the panel would function similar to a grand jury, but would contain medical professionals who would be better equipped to evaluate whether there is a potential breach of professional standards. I admit it’s just a concept at this point, but if the panels could be selected in such a way that they are truly unbiased, I think it could be a workable idea.
Sorry, you’re wrong youngin’. John Edwards that slimy ambulance chaser became rich by alleging every child born with nearly any kind of defect was born that way due to medical malpractice despite a certain percentage of all babies unfortunately are born that way. But thanks to our twisted system where a charming, but scuzzbag lawyer can charm an uninformed jury (much the same way he charmed his mistress out of her panties while his wife lay at home dying of cancer) out of thinking clearly and insisting somebody needs to pay when they see a poor malformed baby, despite any fault. Our legal system is broken, it costs us billions and billions of dollars in nearly all parts of our lives and mostly in medical malpractice.
Wow, Dave.
For every dollar spent to settle medical professional liability claims in the U.S., via settlement or verdict, an additional $.65 is spent on defense costs. (expense:indemnity ratio) Product liability runs closer to 95% for defense.
The referenced study we’re discussing obviously misses the lawsuits in which the hospital defendant assumes liability for the named co-defendant doctor(s) so that he doesn’t have to be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. It is generally the docs who keep the beds filled; ie, large revenue generators.
Med-mal defense counsel works up and defends most all cases, even those meritorious claims of clear liability, and then settles them on the courtroom steps after they’ve made their income. Therein lies a great deal of the waste … and this tactic is of no help to the hospitals, the claimant or the plaintiff attorney. As the frequency of med-mal claims has diminished, and defense firms fight for cases, the abuse by defense counsel has increased. Inexperienced/apathetic claims examiners at the insurance companies and in-house managed self-insured hospitals often do not have the wherewithal to take control of the claims process as they should.
Yes Charles, it has been my experience in over 30 years in this business that insurance companies typically do not like to fight cases because of all the defense billable hours no matter how good their case is. That is why so many cases are decided on – What will it take to make this case go away? They then bandy around numbers until a settlement is reached. The loss goes on the insureds records and the next renewal sees a substantial rate increase.
I doubt this study will help rescind damage caps and the hurdles medical negligence victims must jump through to pursue justice. Tort reformists are likely to ignore the Public Citizen study and argue doctors order too many tests and procedures in the name of defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits. However, does that make any sense? Doctors unethically ordering tests or performing procedures that are unnecessary, and penny-pinching insurance companies who only care about profits paying out large sums of money to support this conduct?
If doctors truly are acting unethically by ordering unnecessary tests and performing unnecessary procedures, shouldn’t those doctors be held accountable?
Isn’t it more realistic, and reasonable, to believe that as technology improves and patient expectations increase, doctors are using as many tools as are available? Granted, some insurance companies require doctors to order certain tests before other, more definitive tests, but the reality is patients want answers. Patients demand to know what is wrong with them and, if there is something to treat, patients want it treated. Long gone are the days of “wait and see”, or “it is probably benign”, or “I believe it is nothing to worry about”.
As long as technology improves, patient education increases, and public dissemination of information continues, patients want definitive answers and curative treatment.
“If doctors truly are acting unethically by ordering unnecessary tests and performing unnecessary procedures, shouldn’t those doctors be held accountable?”
Such tests are not necessarily unethical. There are generally prescribed tests based on certain symptoms which doctors should prescribe. Additional tests can be made at the Doctor’s discretion which thanks to frivolous lawsuits, liberal judges and dumb juries are done when generally not needed. That costs money.
“As long as technology improves, patient education increases, and public dissemination of information continues, patients want definitive answers and curative treatment.”
AS long as somebody else pays for it and by the way, don’t increase my rates.
Here’s a very liberal former governor with his thoughts on medicine, tort reform and the most powerful lobby in America today, the trial lawyers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9HcWd5ifBA&list=FL9lJuRBjktDPY_TeM76IBSw&index=29
So Dave, what do you think about Obama appointing the woman at the heart of the IRS scandal to be the enforcement chief for Obamacare? What could possibly go wrong with that appointment? She should be prosecuted and put in jail for her deeds and she will be going after people who don’t sign up for the precious Obamacare.