Health care reform silent on malpractice reform

   The folks drawing up the health care bill in the House spread ink over more than 1,000
pages … but not a word deals head-on with one of the central complaints of doctors in Buffalo
and nationwide.

   There's no mention of medical malpractice liability reform to fix what
doctors call a lawsuit-happy system that prods them to order extra expensive
tests just to ward off potential lawsuits.

   Experts in the field counter by saying that lawsuits are actually falling in volume and
that any effort to change the system might end up costing more.

   But there are other issues at play, too.

   Might it be that doctors are ordering all those tests because, in some
cases, they profit from it?

   And might it be that Democrats are opposed to liability reform because of
the piggy bank … filled with $178.7 million in 2008 alone … that trial lawyers
provide for them?

   … Jerry Zremski

Comments

[pgr88]

Remember - Trial Lawyers and Wall St. were Obama's biggest contributors - by a factor of 9:1!

People are starting to see through the Libs Hugo-Chavez-Saul-Alinsky-style tactics. Just one year ago, it was the evil oil companies. Then we had evil Wall Street, now we have evil insurance companies, and evil doctors who want to remove your tonsils for money.

Remember, when grabbing power, autocrats always need to manufacture enemies!

[bflofirst]

This is a great story. All those citizens who so want health care reform don't seem to understand that fear of law suits from the ambulance chasing lawyers drive up costs enormously. Yet the beloved Liberal president won't go near the one thing that is driving up cost more than anything else.

[Buffalo Libertarian]

Democrats don't want malpractice reform! They like the idea of liberal lawyers being able to sue the pants off of those evil doctors and the rich people who run the corporations and the insurance companies.

[harry]

The health care system is a wealth care system.

Only the wealthy are getting the best of the best care, for life, all fully paid for through their corporations and or government positions.

They have the power to change things, but, why would they even want to. It's far too profitable for them as is, and they and their own are more than well taken care of.
Follow the money and read the headlines. "Health Care Insurance Profits Soar", "Health care profits increased over 400% since 2000", etc.

Keep on discussing it till the end of time, and their profits increase a 1000%, and we all die, prematurily, poor and homeless. Talk is cheap and a very good distraction from getting anything accomplished.

[Danno]

Any national health care plan must also abolish federal employees' health care system.

[wil]

Once again the lying liars and their outrageous indignation take center stage,... lets put the facts out on the table shall we...

http://www.insurance-reform.org/TrueRiskF.pdf

• Medical malpractice premiums, inflation-adjusted, are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.

• Medical malpractice claims, inflation-adjusted, are dropping significantly, down 45 percent since 2000.

• Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of the country’s overall health care costs; medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs. In over 30 years, premiums and claims have never been greater than 1% of our nation’s health care costs.

• Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been remarkably profitable over the last five years.

• The periodic premium spikes that doctors experience, as they did from 2002 until 2005, are not related to claims but to the economic cycle of insurers and to drops in investment income.

• Many states that have resisted enacting severe restrictions on injured patients’ legal rights experienced rate changes (i.e., premium increases or decreases for doctors) similar to those in states that enacted severe restrictions on patients’ rights, i.e., there is no correlation between "tort reform" and insurance rates for doctors.

FACT!!!!!
Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of the country’s overall health care costs; medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs.

It's funny how conservatives like to throw all this garbage out there without taking the time to look up the facts...Ignorance is no excuse!!!

[Jerry]

Wil I agree with you completely.
Of course the neo-cons never let facts interfere with their hate mongering and media manipulation.
One thing to drive down costs, that is related to tort and health care reform, that can be done is to figure out a way that Drs. don't feel the need to order unneccessary tests and and referals.
These do add to the overall health care expense at the rate of about 2-5%.
Do Drs. do this in order to provide the best possible care for their patients or do they do this to avoid the possiblility of something coming back to bite them?

[City Taxpayer]

Is it possible that doctors, who have formed partnerships and set up MIR centers and other such testing facilities, order those tests because it benefits their bottom line?

Can you say 'conflict of interest'?

BTW - Wil - another great effort! Thanks for staying vigilant!

Anyone catch former NYS Lt Gov. Betsy McCaughey making a complete fool of herself on The Daily Show last week with regard to the "death panels" "...someone took page 432 out of my 3-ring binder!" Betsy?

That's how the stupid rumors get started, y'know...

[Buffalo Libertarian]

Wil wrote: "Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of the country’s overall health care costs."

What nonsense! "The country" isn't paying malpractice premiums, individual doctors are.

All this nonsense about "inflation-adjusted" is just that: nonsense! The rate of inflation has been five percent or less from the early 1990s until sometime late in the Bush regime's administration. Many of these doctors paying for malpractice insurance haven't even been doctors for 30 years!

As for "the country's" overall health costs, more nonsense! The federal government ("the country") does not have health costs except for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and the portion of premiums it pays for the health insurance its employees have.

[Buffalo Libertarian]

Wil, your link is from a health reform advocacy group: nothing it says can ever be accepted as "fact." You (especially you) must provide information from entirely unbiased sources that have been independently verified by other unbiased sources before anything you say can ever be accepted as fact. It's as silly to accept anything from the link you provided as it is to accept anything from some conservative health care reform opposition group.

[City Taxpayer]

Buff Lib - the link is for The Center for Justice and Democracy - a non profit organization that fights for a number of causes - if you took just a couple of minutes to actually check the link out

And, among it's 21 advisors, the CJ&D has:
Erin Brockovich (of the movie fame)
Law professors from UB and Georgetown along with 11-other law school professors from universities throughout the country...etc.

It was founded in 1998 and has been doing good work protecting consumers in many areas of life since then.

For you to dismiss the organization and claim they are biased is just plain IGNORANT!

[Buffalo Libertarian]

City Taxpayer, the document linked is labeled "Americans for Insurance Reform." Again, the fact that it is from an advocacy group automatically makes it biased and, therefore, not a valid source.

All advocacy groups are biased toward those things they're advocating - whether we're talking about some leftist extremist group or some right wing extremist group or any group in between. Their advocacy for a specific position automatically eliminates them from consideration as an unbiased (and, therefore, valid) source of information about a particular issue. I will not accept as fact anything that comes from a biased source.

[City Taxpayer]

Yes, Buff Lib - that is on the top of the page, BUT when you scroll down to the bottom, this is what you'll find:

"90 Broad Street  Suite 401  New York, NY 10004-3307  (212) 267-2801  Fax (212) 459-0910
info@insurance-reform.org  www.insurance-reform.org  (A project of the Center for Justice & Democracy)"

Notice it says - A project of the Center for Justice & Democracy"

So, next time PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DO A THOROUGH EXAMINATION BEFORE YOU REALLY MAKE YOURSELF LOOK IGNORANT!

[Buffalo Libertarian]

City Taxpayer wrote: "Notice it says - A project of the Center for Justice & Democracy." That Americans for Insurance Reform did it for the Center for Justice and Democracy or the other way around is pretty much irrelevant: both are advocacy groups (for one thing or another), both are automatically biased and, therefore, neither of them can be considered unbiased sources.

To reiterate what I said earlier: All advocacy groups are biased toward those things they're advocating - whether we're talking about some leftist extremist group or some right wing extremist group or any group in between. Their advocacy for a specific position automatically eliminates them from consideration as an unbiased (and, therefore, valid) source of information about a particular issue.

So, are you ready to knock off this nonsense of trying to defend Wil's biased sources and contribute something meaningful to the discussion or are you going to keep on trying to convince people that these sources should be accepted without question simply because you're so damned stupidly impressed with college professors and celebrities?

I addressed some of Wil's so-called "facts":

The country" isn't paying malpractice premiums, individual doctors are.

All this nonsense about "inflation-adjusted" is just that: nonsense! The rate of inflation has been five percent or less from the early 1990s until sometime late in the Bush regime's administration. Many of these doctors paying for malpractice insurance haven't even been doctors for 30 years!

As for "the country's" overall health costs, more nonsense! The federal government ("the country") does not have health costs except for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and the portion of premiums it pays for the health insurance its employees have.

You are welcome to address Wil's so-called "facts" as well.

[Hank]

In general, doctors, the AMA, and the health insurance industry created the monstrosity of tort by not policing their own, by lack of information to patients, by self-described "ordering" tests unnecessarily, and creating a not-user friendly health care system. Just as with nursing home abuses, clergy abuses, then there had to be accountability and redress of wrongs. The tort system simply reflects what the emdical community required patients and the public to do.
In Britain, tort excess does not exist. When phsyicians and HMO/insurance executive go on salary as real employees, with real standards of conduct, and real auditing accountability, the abuses will lessen greatly.
Tort reform will take place, in a phased and orderly way once the health care system is made competitive and accountable. It will not be neglected. The media is putting the cart before the horse.

[Neil]

Anyone who doesn't believe that frivolous or marginal lawsuits are a primary cause of malpractice premiums rising is clearly practiced at the art of denial and/or rationalization. We want a healthcare system more in-line with Great Britain? Why not use their tort system as well, where those bringing and losing a suit get to pay everyone's legal expenses too?

[wil]

Believe what you like Buff Lib.. They are not my facts just studies done by scholars.. How you can put a personal bias towards a number escapes me..Five claims bias cause two plus two equals four...HUH? The fact of the matter is malpractice suits are such a tiny sliver of the pie that to give them top relevance is just silly and not addressing the real problems...Would you really like to have no accountability for doctors whatsoever... What about that Pignataro fellow..Should he have been free from litigation and responsibility? There are some frivolous lawsuits because everyone thinks they have a case and can win...Should legitimate cases be thrown aside because some frivolous ones are initiated? You really should change your moniker because you are not a libertarian...Now what is your complaint... Doctor's malpractice insurance going up....Well numbers show lawsuits decreasing but premiums going up... WHY? Well why couldn't the answer be that it is the insurance companies (you know the ones RAISING the premiums) greed... Are there any insurance companies lowering their prices? In any commidity market.. ie: fire insurance, car, house, life health, etc.....What are HMO's if not "MIDDLEMEN" who contribute nothing but huge administrative overhead costs to the health market in order to reap huge financial gain for their investors and white collar workers..It is a sham of the most blatant kind..right in front of your face... What if there was no medicare?.. Would these HMO's willingly provide the best coverage to seniors? Do you think many seniors would be purged or excluded because in their "old age" they require lots of attention? Don't be naive man! You need your health to live and contribute (whatever you can) to the betterment of mankind as a whole... Anyone fighting against reform is just supporting the Wall St, Corporatist agenda designed to maintain the continued theft of the taxpayers dollars..

[MD]

Hey Wil:
Once again, putting out propoganda as fact. Your excerpts from what I'm sure we're supposed to believe is an unbiased report (from 2005, by the way) have been thoroughly debunked by the AMA in this report:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/363/angoff-prp.pdf

Now, weren't you saying something about throwing out garbage as facts?

[Buffalo Libertarian]

Wil wrote: "They are not my facts just studies done by scholars.. How you can put a personal bias towards a number escapes me."

It's really simple: so-called "studies" - particularly those involving statistics - can be manipulated to say anything you want them to say. What was that saying attributed to Mark Twain? "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

But even before we get to the content of the studies, we have the organizations putting out the report you linked earlier: they're advocacy groups and, therefore, automatically biased. Since they're automatically biased, they're not to be trusted to report anything in an unbiased manner. They're going to spin the information to make it say what they want it to say.

For example, the finding you cited that "Medical malpractice premiums, inflation-adjusted, are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years." Why 30 years? Why not look at 10 years or 50 years or 5 years? Why specifically look at 30 years? And what about the fact (and it is fact) that a large number of physicians today who pay for malpractice insurance have not even been doctors for 30 years?

Wil wrote: "The fact of the matter is malpractice suits are such a tiny sliver of the pie that to give them top relevance is just silly and not addressing the real problems...Would you really like to have no accountability for doctors whatsoever... What about that Pignataro fellow..Should he have been free from litigation and responsibility? There are some frivolous lawsuits because everyone thinks they have a case and can win...Should legitimate cases be thrown aside because some frivolous ones are initiated?"

Many of these lawsuits shouldn't be allowed to go to trial exactly because they're "frivolous." But the issue isn't whether cases should be allowed to go to trial but whether juries should be allowed to award millions of dollars to a plaintiff just because a doctor made a mistake (doctors are human too). And while it isn't a majority portion of the health care pie, it does lead to astronomical malpractice insurance rates which, in turn, leads to increases in charges for health care and increases in the number of expensive tests and procedures that are done because doctors are trying to keep from getting sued. So, it's all inter-connected.

Wil asked: "Now what is your complaint?"

My complaint is that the federal government has no business even sticking its nose into health care because it doesn't have the constitutional authority to do so. I want the federal government to stay out of it entirely - not only because it's unconstitutional but because the federal government has pretty much screwed up every social program it has ever started.

You went on a tirade about HMOs and other insurance companies and their greed. The fact of the matter is that they're in business to make a profit - that's the nature of a capitalist economic system. I don't have a problem with them making a profit. And when they get to the point where they raise the premiums too high, they'll end up losing money because they're going to lose customers - which is as it should be. The problem is when they start forming cartels (which is not capitalism) and various arrangements to manipulate prices (and, thereby, prevent true competition).

Wil asked: "Do you think many seniors would be purged or excluded because in their 'old age' they require lots of attention?"

Yes, I do. The government would eventually do it to cut costs and private health insurance would do it to cut costs and/or increase profits.

It isn't so much health care reform that people object to as it is the government sticking its nose into it. We don't want government-run health care. We don't want the government dictating to insurance companies what coverage they must provide and at what price. We don't want the government telling doctors what procedures they can or cannot perform or what lifestyle choices patients may or may not make.

If the government wants to do something helpful with regard to health care then it can act under the interstate commerce clause and let people buy health insurance across state lines (though even this might be a bit of a stretch).

[Hank]

Finally Pfizer and its shareholders are being punished severely for their excesses. Pfizer flagrantly spent millions of dollars in violating laws and principles, in concert with the medical community. These are the one that will face real reform school, when a government administered public option is in place.
They and their ilk created the monstrosity of a system that exists now.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pfizer-to-pay-record-23B-apf-1176280604.html?x=0

[wil]

MD... what a joke... you refute the report with the opinion of one person/doctor...
Propaganda huh? how about this for propaganda by your source the AMA...
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/09/14/ama-shocker-physicians-support-public-insurance-option/
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ickyma/2009/07/cbo-shows-public-option-dramat.php

Now go back to school and learn some critical thinking and research skills