Fair enough, and I agree with that.

fan_from_texas wrote:

Tort reform and malpractice lawsuits/insurance are a favorite whipping boy of the right, but I'm not convinced that they have a meaningful impact on the overall costs of healthcare (in full disclosure, I'm an attorney, though I never have and never will do any medmal work). Many (most?) states already have some forms of damage caps in place, and those caps haven't resulted in premiums or costs dropping, to the best of my knowledge. The issue appears to be structural (bad apple doctors who can go from state to state, with a handful of doctors responsible for the vast majority of lawsuits). We're better off getting those doctors out of practice than we are in capping the damages people can get when those doctors cut off the wrong leg, for example.

If that's what it takes to lower malpractice insurance, then thats what we need to do. My "tort reform" list was a way to get to the goal of lower malpractice insurance since that, in the end, should lead to lower health insurance costs/premiums.

jmog wrote: If that's what it takes to lower malpractice insurance, then thats what we need to do. My "tort reform" list was a way to get to the goal of lower malpractice insurance since that, in the end, should lead to lower health insurance costs/premiums.

It would require federal intervention over traditional state affairs (medical regulation). That sort of tort reform obviously isn't going to go over well with many on the right.

The last time I saw the numbers (2-3 yrs ago), the malpractice insurance rates were increasing at approximately the same rate as the rest of health insurance costs, and they don't make up a particularly big part of the pie to begin with. There's a lot of misinformation out there (because it is a favorite whipping boy and low-hanging fruit), but my understanding is that capping recoveries is unlikely to have any real impact on health care costs. I believe Little Danny has done some medmal work (or at least is more familiar with it than I am) and can shed some light on it.

Generally, most people who are injured by a doctor and have a claim don't sue. Most who do sue don't win. Most who win don't even cover their costs. The issue appears to be that too much malpractice is happening (e.g., doctors are too often cutting off the wrong legs or leaving their cell phones in patients, for whatever reason), not that too many people are suing over it.

fan_from_texas wrote:
It would require federal intervention over traditional state affairs (medical regulation). That sort of tort reform obviously isn't going to go over well with many on the right.

The last time I saw the numbers (2-3 yrs ago), the malpractice insurance rates were increasing at approximately the same rate as the rest of health insurance costs, and they don't make up a particularly big part of the pie to begin with. There's a lot of misinformation out there (because it is a favorite whipping boy and low-hanging fruit), but my understanding is that capping recoveries is unlikely to have any real impact on health care costs. I believe Little Danny has done some medmal work (or at least is more familiar with it than I am) and can shed some light on it.

Generally, most people who are injured by a doctor and have a claim don't sue. Most who do sue don't win. Most who win don't even cover their costs. The issue appears to be that too much malpractice is happening (e.g., doctors are too often cutting off the wrong legs or leaving their cell phones in patients, for whatever reason), not that too many people are suing over it.

I'm willing to be wrong as I'm no doctor or lawyer, but I'm just going off of what a few old college buddies, who are doctors, have told me.

That one of their largest costs they have to pass onto their patients/insurance companies, is their malpractice insurance costs. Nowadays more doctors are so afraid of being sued that they will call for extra/costly tests to be run, at the cost of the insurance/patient, just to cover their butts.

63% favor repeal of obamaKare ---- highest thus far, and rising.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law

Anyone who has even performed a cursory review of this legislation easily recognizes what an abomination it is ................. it would likely seal our demise over the next decade when coupled with the rampant and wreckless spending of this administration.

And just more reason why i am not a fan of this bill at all.

bigkahuna wrote:
Man O'War,

I'm not sure what the company is because their facility was recently bought out. However, the Insurance provider is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

That's odd, because my company just switched from Cigna to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and it almost doubled.

Malpractice premiums are a huge cost to physcians. It does somewhat get passed along to the patients, but the costs that affect the people the most is all of the defensive medicine that is being performed.

Defensive medicine is providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Examples of defensive medicine include ordering additional bloodwork that may not be necessary, ordering an MRI or a CT scan when an X-ray would have sufficed, over x-raying a patient and the industry favorite, unnecessary c-sections when the delivery could have been performed vaginally. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices. The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.

^^^Very interesting; thanks. Do you know how these numbers compare between states that have/have not put damage caps in place?

ManO'War wrote:

bigkahuna wrote:
Man O'War,

I'm not sure what the company is because their facility was recently bought out. However, the Insurance provider is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

That's odd, because my company just switched from Cigna to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and it almost doubled.

The insurance has been BCBS for years. The new company came and rolled over EVERYTHING. It could be due to the new company, but we both found it odd and (happily suprising) that our insurance is staying the same, but our rates are going down.

Tort reform and opening up states for competing companies would definitely lower health care costs to a point, but the biggest reason for rising prices are pharmaceutical monopolies and government subsidies and involvement in the health care industry. These problems will never be solved in this country.

Little Danny wrote: Malpractice premiums are a huge cost to physcians. It does somewhat get passed along to the patients, but the costs that affect the people the most is all of the defensive medicine that is being performed.

Defensive medicine is providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Examples of defensive medicine include ordering additional bloodwork that may not be necessary, ordering an MRI or a CT scan when an X-ray would have sufficed, over x-raying a patient and the industry favorite, unnecessary c-sections when the delivery could have been performed vaginally. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices. The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.

I agree with all of this above. I've seen these "defensive medicine" activities in my own family life in 4 or 5 occasions over the past year alone.

The patient needs to research these tests over the net and make educated decisions on these "cash cows".

Whereby the major incentive for docs in running needless tests is due to defensive medicine, there is also, to a smaller degree,. immediate monetary gains as well. Doctors make a "cut" on every MRI performed....just by reading them.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22.

That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.

This boat is sinking.

fan_from_texas wrote: ^^^Very interesting; thanks. Do you know how these numbers compare between states that have/have not put damage caps in place?

The studies I have seen have not shown a decrease iin overall health costs, but what I have seen is that states that have enacted tort reform have seen a ground-swell in access to health care. Docs are packing up and leaving states without reform measures and moving to places like Ohio, Texas, New Mexico, Indiana, etc. Now a couple of those states are having an overall growth in population, but we are seeing states that are not growing (ie. Ohio and Indiana) have an influx of physicians as well.

Footwedge wrote:

Little Danny wrote: Malpractice premiums are a huge cost to physcians. It does somewhat get passed along to the patients, but the costs that affect the people the most is all of the defensive medicine that is being performed.

Defensive medicine is providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Examples of defensive medicine include ordering additional bloodwork that may not be necessary, ordering an MRI or a CT scan when an X-ray would have sufficed, over x-raying a patient and the industry favorite, unnecessary c-sections when the delivery could have been performed vaginally. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices. The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.

I agree with all of this above. I've seen these "defensive medicine" activities in my own family life in 4 or 5 occasions over the past year alone.

The patient needs to research these tests over the net and make educated decisions on these "cash cows".

Whereby the major incentive for docs in running needless tests is due to defensive medicine, there is also, to a smaller degree,. immediate monetary gains as well. Doctors make a "cut" on every MRI performed....just by reading them.

I agree patients need to start taking more ownership of their health. As an aside there are a lot of resources out there for them do so. With the advent of the internet, more information is readily available than ever before. I also know that there is software out there available to help explain medcial procedures and the risks and benefits that come with them. One program I know firsthands is a program through Emmi Solutions. A lot of surgical and obstetrical practices carry their software The program dumbs down the medicine and gives visual animation demonstrating the procedure. The patient can also subscribe to view this at home so they can show this to loved ones (really good in situations where you have an elderly parent or perhaps a loved one who are not very articulate). This program is very simple and has been set up in a manner to explain a medicine at an elementary level. I have attached a link to a demo:

http://www.emmisolutions.com/demo/index.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9G993800&show_article=1

The thing is, I don't think that the people who pushed and pushed for this particular bill, and those that wanted/still want it, really thought of it as a lie. I totally believe that they were so zealous to have any "healthcare" bill out there that they couldn't see the big picture. They were/are blinded by it. And since day one they have not been able to understand why there should be any protest of it. They can't understand why people pick it apart. And when given rational or opinionated thoughts of opposition, they deny it line by line.
Now, I agree that there's a portion of that that was politically motivated, that's a gimme. (in fact, there are factions that want to morph it into a single payer system over time) But, the other half of that is pure emotional zealoutry and they will never, ever, be willing to open up and recognize any folly regarding it.

ccrunner609;364005 wrote:He will go down as the worst president of all time.

Considering that we just had George W. Bush for eight years, what you are saying is impossible.