"Trial lawyers plan tort reform fight"

[vokey588]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20097.html

It turns out that Obama is actually open to tort reform as a means to reduce costs. With the trial lawyer lobby working hard against this, it may be hard to get Democratic legislators to vote for this, especially considering doctors' groups are conflicting with each other (for example: AMA supports it, The American College of Cardiologists is less supportive).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoSpursGo]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20097.html

It turns out that Obama says he is actually open to tort reform as a means to reduce costs. With the trial lawyer lobby working hard against this, it may be hard to get Democratic legislators to vote for this, especially considering doctors' groups are conflicting with each other (for example: AMA supports it, The American College of Cardiologists is less supportive).

Fixed.

I think Emanuel's answer at that AMA meeting was such BS. He didn't want to be booed off stage by saying Obama has no interest in tort reform.

I'd like to believe he's thinking about tort reform... but you'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Bacchus]

Malpractice payouts are an insignificant cost when compared to the overall cost of healthcare, as the article mentions. However, in states such as mine where malpractice is not capped, premiums for high risk specialties such as OB/GYN are proving crippling for the physician that is practicing. This is more than sue sue sue; let's try less sue sue sue and lower premiums for physicians.

 

[Law2Doc]

Malpractice payouts are an insignificant cost when compared to the overall cost of healthcare, as the article mentions. However, in states such as mine where malpractice is not capped, premiums for high risk specialties such as OB/GYN are proving crippling for the physician that is practicing. This is more than sue sue sue; let's try less sue sue sue and lower premiums for physicians.

OBGYN docs have been claiming that they are being driven out of business since the 80s, but in fact there was no such mass exudus to date. As for expecting insurance companies to LOWER PREMIUMS by fewer suits, I wouldn't hold my breath. The goal of a business like insurance is to make more money for your stockholders each year. So fewer suits won't mean money back to the doctors, it will just mean more money for the shareholders. (Note the fiasco that is going on right now, where AIG asked for and got more federal bailout money and subsequently gave management nice bonuses). The issue with litigation driven costs is insurance related, and fewer lawsuits unfortunately isn't going to be enough incentive for a money hungry insurance company to kick money back to the MDs.

 

[Pedsbro]

Fixed.

I think Emanuel's answer at that AMA meeting was such BS. He didn't want to be booed off stage by saying Obama has no interest in tort reform.

I'd like to believe he's thinking about tort reform... but you'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath.

Me either... He's good at talking the talk..

 

[chessknt]

Malpractice payouts are an insignificant cost when compared to the overall cost of healthcare, as the article mentions. However, in states such as mine where malpractice is not capped, premiums for high risk specialties such as OB/GYN are proving crippling for the physician that is practicing. This is more than sue sue sue; let's try less sue sue sue and lower premiums for physicians.

Directly it is a small %, but how many bull**** tests/procedures are done to prevent lawsuits because of the current malpractice law? I read somewhere that defensive medicine eats up large chunk of money and that is something that could be helped by tort reform.

 

[drumboy]

OBGYN docs have been claiming that they are being driven out of business since the 80s, but in fact there was no such mass exudus to date. As for expecting insurance companies to LOWER PREMIUMS by fewer suits, I wouldn't hold my breath. The goal of a business like insurance is to make more money for your stockholders each year. So fewer suits won't mean money back to the doctors, it will just mean more money for the shareholders. (Note the fiasco that is going on right now, where AIG asked for and got more federal bailout money and subsequently gave management nice bonuses). The issue with litigation driven costs is insurance related, and fewer lawsuits unfortunately isn't going to be enough incentive for a money hungry insurance company to kick money back to the MDs.

Essentially, this will lower the costs for insurance companies. In turn, if they don't lower their premiums, other insurance companies will. If they don't, some savy entrepreneurs will form their own insurance company, charging lower premiums, because in order to maximize wealth for their shareholders, they need customers. The best way to gian market share in a price-sensitive market is to find a way to charge customers less. If the big boys want to prevent losing market share to keep shareholders' wealth, they lower their premiums.

That's why the auto industry is failing now - inefficiency in their systems, high costs, etc. We should be investing in companies and practices that innovate, not burdening ourselves by trying to resuscitate companies that got out-managed and out-innovated. Toyota and Honda put Chrysler out of business 20 years ago, it just took this long for it to catch up to them.

Anyway, it might take a couple years for insurance companies to lower their premiums, but that's the beauty of a market-driven society. Collusion rarely works, unless you're OPEC, and even they have trouble colluding.

 

[WhizoMD]

Directly it is a small %, but how many bull**** tests/procedures are done to prevent lawsuits because of the current malpractice law? I read somewhere that defensive medicine eats up large chunk of money and that is something that could be helped by tort reform.

Sanjay Gupta's been kinda pitching it from that angle on CNN the past couple weeks. Since he was considered for a spot in the administration I'm hoping it might be a hint as to what they're thinking/hearing .

 

[cpants]

OBGYN docs have been claiming that they are being driven out of business since the 80s, but in fact there was no such mass exudus to date. As for expecting insurance companies to LOWER PREMIUMS by fewer suits, I wouldn't hold my breath. The goal of a business like insurance is to make more money for your stockholders each year. So fewer suits won't mean money back to the doctors, it will just mean more money for the shareholders. (Note the fiasco that is going on right now, where AIG asked for and got more federal bailout money and subsequently gave management nice bonuses). The issue with litigation driven costs is insurance related, and fewer lawsuits unfortunately isn't going to be enough incentive for a money hungry insurance company to kick money back to the MDs.

I have to agree with drumboy. Insurance companies aren't going to be able to just pocket the cost reductions as extra profits for their shareholders. Competition will drive the premiums down. Less suits can only help doctors, not only in decreased premiums, but also in less time and money wasted in defense, less pressure to order unnecessary tests, and a less adversarial relationship with patients.

 

[niranjan162]

Me either... He's good at talking the talk..

+1 I really dont see a lawyer, screwing over his lawyer buddies.

 

[seelee]

Directly it is a small %, but how many bull**** tests/procedures are done to prevent lawsuits because of the current malpractice law? I read somewhere that defensive medicine eats up large chunk of money and that is something that could be helped by tort reform.

This is the main factor. No, tort reform might not make a huge impact on the overall cost per capita, but if doctors can get away from practicing defensive medicine, then that will cut down on wasteful procedures which is the majority of the wasteful cost.

 

[Raryn]

OBGYN docs have been claiming that they are being driven out of business since the 80s, but in fact there was no such mass exudus to date. As for expecting insurance companies to LOWER PREMIUMS by fewer suits, I wouldn't hold my breath. The goal of a business like insurance is to make more money for your stockholders each year. So fewer suits won't mean money back to the doctors, it will just mean more money for the shareholders. (Note the fiasco that is going on right now, where AIG asked for and got more federal bailout money and subsequently gave management nice bonuses). The issue with litigation driven costs is insurance related, and fewer lawsuits unfortunately isn't going to be enough incentive for a money hungry insurance company to kick money back to the MDs.

Because you know, Dallas doesn't have substantially cheaper malpractice premiums than Miami or anything.

Edit: Found some interesting info: http://www.medlawblog.com/archives/...iums-due-to-tort-reform-with-damage-caps.html (yeah yeah, its a blog, but i'm having trouble finding the original source I saw it in last year)

 

[niranjan162]

Why Doctors Are Heading for Texas

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Today obstetricians, surgeons and other doctors might consider reviving the practice. Over the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee.




Why? Two words: Tort reform.

 

[Ubergeek]

What's the opposite of defensive medicine? Offensive medicine?

Torts aren't going to force doctors out of practice. Nationalizing health care, reducing compensation, and putting stringent limits on physician autonomy might, though.

 

[niranjan162]

What's the opposite of defensive medicine? Offensive medicine?

Torts aren't going to force doctors out of practice. Nationalizing health care, reducing compensation, and putting stringent limits on physician autonomy might, though.

I think the discussion is about tort reform vs no reform, in terms of cost saving.

I guess theres no opposite of defensive medicine, but lack of it means less unnecessary tests/procedures, which saves money, lower malpractice rates, etc.

But I do agree with you, those things will drive people away from medicine.

 

[Nilf]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20097.html

It turns out that Obama is actually open to tort reform as a means to reduce costs. With the trial lawyer lobby working hard against this, it may be hard to get Democratic legislators to vote for this, especially considering doctors' groups are conflicting with each other (for example: AMA supports it, The American College of Cardiologists is less supportive).

Tort reform is NOT happening with this administration. Stop wasting your time reading about it.

Here is a letter to JAMA that Obama and Hillary Clinton wrote 3 years ago... before they were in the White House...

Their recommendation: “Instead of focusing on the few areas of intense disagreement, such as the possibility of mandating caps on the financial damages awarded to patients, we believe that the discussion should center on a more fundamental issue: the need to improve patient safety.”

Translation: "We are posing as protector of patients so we can win votes and don't give a flying phuck about you"


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2205

 

[riceman04]

Malpractice payouts are an insignificant cost when compared to the overall cost of healthcare, as the article mentions. However, in states such as mine where malpractice is not capped, premiums for high risk specialties such as OB/GYN are proving crippling for the physician that is practicing. This is more than sue sue sue; let's try less sue sue sue and lower premiums for physicians.

 

[vokey588]

As many of you probably remember, Obama made sure that a program was placed into the stimulus bill that was specifically designed to determine the comparative effectiveness of treatments for the same disease. For the studies that display convincing disparities, I wouldn't be surprised if legislators passed something that gives doctors a little more legal immunity (not complete immunity, just partial) if they treat based on the evidence. I see it as similar to when the SCOTUS ruled that medical device makers couldn't be sued for their devices since the FDA approved the devices.

 

[Nilf]

As many of you probably remember, Obama made sure that a program was placed into the stimulus bill that was specifically designed to determine the comparative effectiveness of treatments for the same disease. For the studies that display convincing disparities, I wouldn't be surprised if legislators passed something that gives doctors a little more legal immunity (not complete immunity, just partial) if they treat based on the evidence. I see it as similar to when the SCOTUS ruled that medical device makers couldn't be sued for their devices since the FDA approved the devices.

No, no, no. This whole 'comparative effectiveness' initiative is a politically instigated plot on the part of federal government to slow down medical advances. Nothing else. The goal is to save money.

Medicine is WAY to complex to legislate, so dont' count on Congress to pass a bill to guarantee legal immunity for 'treating based on evidence'. A lawyer worth his salt will always find a way to screw you.

 

[niranjan162]

As many of you probably remember, Obama made sure that a program was placed into the stimulus bill that was specifically designed to determine the comparative effectiveness of treatments for the same disease. For the studies that display convincing disparities, I wouldn't be surprised if legislators passed something that gives doctors a little more legal immunity (not complete immunity, just partial) if they treat based on the evidence. I see it as similar to when the SCOTUS ruled that medical device makers couldn't be sued for their devices since the FDA approved the devices.

I agree with nilf, if anything this will add more litigation and take away autonomy. Whatever their study decides is the best option will be the standard of care, if you deviate from it, even if you are right, you will likely face lots of litigation.

I think these effectiveness studies are garbage. People are different, and in many different ways, we're not fixing ipods that come off the factory line. Some things will work better for others, but there will be consequences if you deviate from the findings of the study.