Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

Boo Radley · Mar 5, 2010

RightinNYC said:
First off, you're copy pasting from the president of the "American Association for Justice," which is a plaintiff lawyer's advocacy group. It's like relying on the head of Phillip Morris for info about tobacco.

Second, 0.5 percent of $2.3 Trillion is a ****load of money.

Third, it's only 0.5% becase the tort reform that the CBO is looking at only deals with caps on pain and suffering, which doesn't really deal with the underlying issue. A program that enacted comprehensive reform of the entire process by which medical malpractice is addressed would have far greater effects.

Could Tort Reform Help Rescue Health Care Legislation? Third Way Perspectives

What does that have to do with anything? That's some of the worst logic I've ever heard, although it's fairly typical for a plaintiff's lawyer. That's like saying that murder isn't a big deal because it's only 1% of all crime.

The proposals direct the states to institute pilot programs and then provide a whopping $25 million to do so. Yea, real reform there.

That is just awful, awful logic. Wow. I just really don't know what to say about that.

No, I'm saying that the idea that the coverage for the test itself is predicated on the result doesn't make sense at all. No doctor that I've ever heard of would consent to perform such a test, since their receipt of payment could be conditioned on the outcome. That doesn't sound right.

NO, I think the logic was quite sound above. Costs did not go down over all. Tort reform did not lower costs. That's the point. (see KeeKee's post)

As for the doctor, he was never involved to my knowledge. He didn't call my provider and considered me responsible for the cost. We had one insurance and had just switched to another. As this goes forward, it will be interesting to see how it plays.

BWG · Mar 5, 2010

RightinNYC said:
Third, it's only 0.5% becase the tort reform that the CBO is looking at only deals with caps on pain and suffering, which doesn't really deal with the underlying issue. A program that enacted comprehensive reform of the entire process by which medical malpractice is addressed would have far greater effects.

I agree that the process needs to be reformed. More people should be compensated for malpractice.

“The main problem with the medical malpractice system is not that too many people get compensated — it’s that too few do,” Mello [Michelle Mello, professor of law and public health at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston] said. “Only 2% of those injured by medical malpractice end up bringing suit.”

Health courts for those who never thought they’d have a case - Health Matters - MarketWatch

RightinNYC said:
That is just awful, awful logic. Wow. I just really don't know what to say about that.

What that shows is that the 'trickle down' crap doesn't work, mainly because of greed. After tort reform, the doctors malpractice insurance rates dropped and the benefit of tort reform stopped right there. There is no trickle down to the consumer.

RightinNYC · Mar 5, 2010

KeeKee said:
On the site:
Tort Reform and the Effect of Medical Malpractice Caps

I find this to be conflicting info...

"According to a recent article in the New York Times, physicians are flooding into Texas because of the state’s recent approval of a constitutional amendment limiting medical malpractice awards. Further, physicians noticed that the state of Texas experienced an average 21.3% decrease in medical malpractice insurance premiums during the four years following the tort reform legislation. "

Then on down the page it says...

"One report reveals that limitations on medical malpractice awards produced payout averages 15.7% lower than those of states without caps between 1991 and 2002. This statistic is true despite the fact that many of the states did not institute the limitations until near the end of the reporting period. Meanwhile, the median annual premium in states with caps increased an alarming 48.2%. Surprisingly, the median annual premium in states without caps increased more slowly: by 35.9%. In other words, the median medical malpractice insurance premiums were actually higher in states with caps. This is contrary to the goal of the limitations on medical malpractice awards."

NO, I think the logic was quite sound above. Costs did not go down over all. Tort reform did not lower costs. That's the point. (see KeeKee's post)

Again, even pretending that that study is verifiable (there's no link to it nor any indication where it's coming from), correlation =/= causation. Furthermore, even if there were causation, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is an entirely different type of malpractice reform. Reread my post.

BWG said:
I agree that the process needs to be reformed. More people should be compensated for malpractice.

Agreed. Health courts would be a good step toward that system.

What that shows is that the 'trickle down' crap doesn't work, mainly because of greed. After tort reform, the doctors malpractice insurance rates dropped and the benefit of tort reform stopped right there. There is no trickle down to the consumer.

No, what it shows is that you, like the others, are really failing to recognize that "this" < correlation < causation.

BWG · Mar 6, 2010

RightinNYC said:
Agreed. Health courts would be a good step toward that system.

With the caveat that the patients retain the right to carry their complaint to the proper judicial authority.

Not saying that tort reform is the ONLY reason for the reduction of malpractice premiums, but to say there is no correlation is ludicrous.

The decrease in premiums is due to a drop in the number of medical lawsuits filed, according to Lawrence Smarr, president and CEO of the Physician Insurers Association of America. Why are the number of cases going down? A combination of factors, including state tort reform laws and patient safety improvements in some states, said Robert Francis, chief operating officer of The Doctors Company, a physician-owned liability insurer.

Docs Case For Tort Reform Gets Harder To Make - Shots - Health News Blog : NPR

That was when the General Assembly and then-Gov. Matt Blunt enacted caps on the amounts that could be awarded in certain categories and limited where suits could be filed. The changes, called “tort reform,” were designed to reduce the premiums doctors, hospitals and other health care workers paid for insurance. Critics said premium costs were driving doctors out of the state.

Doctors now report that premiums have fallen.

Doctors? malpractice insurance rates drop with fewer negligence claims | ColumbiaTribune.com

According to a recent article in the New York Times, physicians are flooding into Texas because of the state’s recent approval of a constitutional amendment limiting medical malpractice awards. Further, physicians noticed that the state of Texas experienced an average 21.3% decrease in medical malpractice insurance premiums during the four years following the tort reform legislation.

Tort Reform and the Effect of Medical Malpractice Caps

RightinNYC · Mar 6, 2010

BWG said:
With the caveat that the patients retain the right to carry their complaint to the proper judicial authority.

That's one way, though its impact would obviously be lesser than a comprehensive scheme. Even such a piecemeal method of reform could have a substantial impact on outcomes. The WI malpractice mediation panels would be a good model. Wisconsin Court System - Medical Mediation Panels

Not saying that tort reform is the ONLY reason for the reduction of malpractice premiums, but to say there is no correlation is ludicrous.

I wasn't referring to the correlation between malpractice reform and malpractice insurance premiums, as I think you're right that that's fairly obvious. I was referring to the negative correlation between malpractice reform and health insurance premiums that some were claiming existed.

Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

Boo Radley

BWG

RightinNYC

Girthless

BWG

RightinNYC

Girthless

Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

Boo Radley

BWG

RightinNYC

Girthless

BWG

RightinNYC

Girthless

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency