Tort Reform Scaremongering is Untrue, study finds

[Sava]

Texas Study Casts Doubt on Need for Tort Reform

Thu Mar 10, 1:59 AM ET


HOUSTON (Reuters) - A study released on Thursday cast doubt on whether recent "tort reform" in Texas that limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits and is similar to what President Bush wants nationally was really needed.

The study looked at Texas Department of Insurance records dating back to 1988 and found claims that medical costs were soaring because of too many malpractice lawsuits, the supposed reason for the reform, were not true.

"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states," said the study, conducted by law professors at the University of Texas, University of Illinois and Columbia University law schools.

Only a few states have comprehensive insurance databases like that of Texas, said David Hyman, one of the study authors, but similar studies elsewhere have found nothing to indicate a link between litigation and rising medical costs.

"Everyone who is collecting data is finding more or less the same thing -- there is no evidence of a tort crisis," he told Reuters.

"The clear implication is that 'runaway medical malpractice litigation' makes a poor poster child for the cause of tort reform," said the study, which was released at the Texas law school in Austin.

In 2003, in response to the alleged litigation crisis, Texas passed a law placing a $250,000 cap on certain damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the study found that insurance payouts, jury awards in malpractice lawsuits and costs of legal defense had changed little between 1988 and 2002

The only thing that jumped, they said, was the cost of malpractice insurance, which rose 135 percent from 1999 to 2003 likely because of financial pressures that had nothing to do with litigation.

Bush, who backed tort reform when he was governor of Texas, is now calling for a federal law imposing the same $250,000 cap in malpractice lawsuits.

Without a cap "excessive jury awards will continue to drive up insurance costs," he said in a recent speech.

link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...malpractice_dc

Just as I suspected. There is no tort reform crisis. Malpractice costs are soaring, NOT because of litigation. I think there should be a study into why malpractice insurance is storing. IMO, I think its just a case of insurance companies screwing people.

So what is the real motive behind the tort reform lobby? Do Republicans just really hate the poor and middle class and want to limit their ability to fight back against companies? The GOP's bankrupcy bill seems to support that notion.

So what do we learn today class?

1. Bush is full of ****.
2. Republicans are evil.
3. Don't listen to the pro-tort-reform people.

Discuss.

[Sava]

BTW, I am just riddled with joy in my anticipation of DanS's response to this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, Sava... the tort reforms are just scaremongering. They don't want their big corporate donors to have to pay for shoddy crisises. Malpractice costs are soaring because of insurance providers, not lawyers.

In 2003, in response to the alleged litigation crisis, Texas passed a law placing a $250,000 cap on certain damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the study found that insurance payouts, jury awards in malpractice lawsuits and costs of legal defense had changed little between 1988 and 2002

The only thing that jumped, they said, was the cost of malpractice insurance, which rose 135 percent from 1999 to 2003 likely because of financial pressures that had nothing to do with litigation.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

This doesn't surprise me. I remember having an argument with DanS, Fez, et al about this in another thread.

I too am riddled with joy in anticipation of their response.

[DanS]

I think you can see my response coming from a mile away.

Attorneys are not microeconomists and a credible study requires a microeconomist treatment. In fact, as a group, I find lawyers to be among the least economically inclined available. Because of this, I would deprecate "study" to something more like "report" or merely "position paper."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
BTW, I am just riddled with joy in my anticipation of DanS's response to this.

I'm not. He's just gonna stick up for the corporations and against us little guys.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS
I think you can see my response coming from a mile away.

Attorneys are not microeconomists and a credible study requires a microeconomist treatment. In fact, as a group, I find lawyers to be among the least economically inclined available. Because of this, I would deprecate "study" to something more like "report" or merely "position paper."

My interpretation:

I have no argument or facts to present in opposition to the study, so instead I'll try to discredit them by demeaning their occupation.

This is known as an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the topic or offering some facts in support of his position, DanS has decided to attack the source.

What does this mean?

SAVA WINS!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Long story short the crisis exists that doctors are becoming an endangered species (especially OB's as my wife and I have found out).

Now you ask me to pick who I hate worse (ie. feel is to blame) insurance companies or lawyers. Damn its a toss up. Like asking if I like dental surgery or a case of the clap better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
My interpretation:

I have no argument or facts to present in opposition to the study, so instead I'll try to discredit them by demeaning their occupation.

This is known as an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the topic or offering some facts in support of his position, DanS has decided to attack the source.

What does this mean?

SAVA WINS!

Woot! Sava

Also Dan seems to ignore the current trend in law as pointing towards law and economics, flowing from Judge Posner and his school of thought. I would surprised if there were no economists among the law professors who did the study.

Interestingly, though, David Hyman, one of the authors, who is cited in the article is an M.D. AND a J.D. He is a doctor and lawyer. Shows you that not every doctor is for med malpractice caps.

[Tuberski]

The study found that the number of malpractice payments under $25,000 fell sharply from 1988 to 2002, and the number of payments greater than $25,000 stayed stable.

It also found that median jury verdicts in trials won by patients were for $300,593 in 2002, about the same as in the 1990s.

And total payments to patients in 2002 were $515 million, or 0.6 percent of health care spending, up from $414 million, or 0.8 percent, in 1990. Both numbers are in 2002 dollars.

ACK!

[Sikander]

Gee, what a surprise that law professors find that there is no tort crisis.

The problem is one of the confluence of our tort system and insurance industry. One cannot look only at what is payed out directly in judgements, one has to look also at the much larger amounts payed for malpractice insurance, settlements out of court and the rather huge costs of defensive medicine.

My mother (a physician) payed 25% of her gross on insurance in the early 90s. She was in a moderate risk specialty and had never been sued. In fact she was so squeaky clean that she regularly testified in malpractice cases about the standard of care and ended her days as V.P. of a large hospital in charge of managing the medical staff.

We all pay dearly so that insurance companies, lawyers and a few plaintiffs (in that order) make out like the bandits that they are. Health care is a huge chunk of our economy (12-14% iirc), and a large percentage of that money is wasted on this inefficient system. That's money that could be spent on goods and services that actually produce something positive for the country rather than sleazy lawyer ads or huge payments to duplicitous insurance executives.

[Urban Ranger]

Irman,

You emphasized the wrong paragraph.

In 2003, in response to the alleged litigation crisis, Texas passed a law placing a $250,000 cap on certain damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the study found that insurance payouts, jury awards in malpractice lawsuits and costs of legal defense had changed little between 1988 and 2002

The only thing that jumped, they said, was the cost of malpractice insurance, which rose 135 percent from 1999 to 2003 likely because of financial pressures that had nothing to do with litigation.

Pay particular attention to the part about insurance payouts are not increasing.

[Bosh]

The only thing that jumped, they said, was the cost of malpractice insurance, which rose 135 percent from 1999 to 2003 likely because of financial pressures that had nothing to do with litigation.

Well what the hell is the reason for those insurance costs then? Until that is explained I'd be very very leery of that study since I very much doubt that insurance companies profits have gone up THAT much.

In my own personal view, the minority of doctors that produce the majority of malpractice claims need to be smacked down harder. Just revoking the liscences of a very small number of doctors could save a whole lot of money.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boshko
Well what the hell is the reason for those insurance costs then? Until that is explained I'd be very very leery of that study since I very much doubt that insurance companies profits have gone up THAT much.

Probably not by that much, due to increases in various costs such as overhead.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Probably not by that much, due to increases in various costs such as overhead.

Why?
I know that insurance company overhead is high, but why would it rise to that degree?