Hello I bookmarked this site. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Pianoforte Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

So if the reforms are working to significantly lower med mal cases, why isn’t it working to lower health care premiums in the state?

It is too assumptive, global and generic to say “this state has tort reform so why hasn’t…” You’d have to look at a particular tort reform bill and see what it actually does.

HB 4 substantially amended Texas’ law regarding medical malpractice torts, including establishing a cap of $250,000 per claimant on non-economic damage awards; limiting time for filing a cause of action; toughening the standard of proof; raising the bar on qualifying expert witnesses; and providing for periodic payments of damages. It

That is very robust, almost to the point of impeding legitimate claims. What is Texas missing, exactly, that you think is the silver bullet that will suddenly cause health care prices to drop?

Short answer is there is tort reform and there is tort reform.

A pretend pass it so it looks like there is tort reform bill is not necessarily effective tort reform. Using your own example of Texas. It is clear Texas needed to add a piece to its legislation that addressed the cost of malpratice insurance cost once tort reform is enacted.

It is too assumptive, global and generic to say “this state has tort reform so why hasn’t…” You’d have to look at a particular tort reform bill and see what it actually does.

Just like Obama’s definition of “tort reform” that he is interested in looking at will hardly be tort reform.

Your quesiton is built on an unsupported assumption that in those states that have tort reform, it is actually tort reform.

Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade

How do LAWMAKERS, by whom I guess he means government, save money by damage caps? Does the government provide malpractice insurance?

And $54 Billion over a decade, or $5.4 Billion a year, would not put the tiniest dent in health care spending, which topped 2.2 trillion in 2007.

New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court

Then why don’t we see significant savings and less defensive medicine in the many states that already have tort reform?

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation. Recall this from the Washington Post:

“Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).”

Stay tuned. There are certainly many more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad provisions in this massive bill.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/#more-23042

Oddly enough, several of the doctors who delivered my kids have abandoned the practice of Obstetrics and now only practice Gynecology specifically because of the high cost of malpractice insurance for Obstetrics.

As I said:

Many people have pointed to real reasons to support tort reform, including it’s burden on individual doctors and it’s burden on the legal system. Why, in light of these legitimate benefits, you continue to glom onto a fantasy, which does not bear out logically or empirically, is baffling.

Malpractice costs contributed to several different crises in Obstetrics in Virginia over the past 20 years.

Take a look at this 5 year-old document for more stats and information on the latest problem in Virginia. http://dls.state.va.us/groups/RiskMgmt/MEETINGS/110104/VDH_ppt.pdf

To lower health care cost the cost of doing business needs to be lowered. To lower the cost of doing business the cost of malpractice insurance needs to come down. One of the ways malpractice insurance cost comes down is tort reform.

The fault in that logic is that a business can also lower costs by switching from Papermate to Bic pens. But that is such a small percentage of their costs that the effect is negligible. I have only pointed out 100 times that malpractice costs represent such a small portion of health care costs that even robust reform is unlikely to have an effect on health care costs. You continually ignore this crucial part.

What I have refused to do is take what you’ve offered and allowed you to frame the conversation.

Um the debate, is and always has been whether or not tort reform effectively lowers health care costs. It is not me that has obfuscated the issue by pointing to actual benefits that tort reform may have in other areas, benefits I have acknowleged.

I have also been the only one to provide any empirical data on how little effect tort reform has on heath care costs. I have continually been told how obvious it should be that tort reform will save medicine, yet not one supporter of this idea has pointed to a single study showing its effects. And not a single person has acknowledged the fact that tort reform already exists in half our states, yet costs have continued to skyrocket everywhere. I have cited studies showing malpractice premiums make up 1-2% of total health care costs. I have pointed to evidence that so called “defensive medicine” is a myth. I have pointed to states that have had tort reform for a long time (Cali) and ones that have had it for less than a decade (Texas and Miss.) and shown that the increase in premiums in those states is as high or higher than the average US state. I have pointed to the CBO, which has said that even with a very robust form of tort reform, savings would be about one half of one percent. You have pointed to…well, your feelings I suppose. If you linked or cited to anything else, I missed it. But of course, I am the one bringing my bias into the debate. I guess that and actual facts, but we’ll just focus on the supposed bias.

So yes. You are grasping onto a fantasy. But continue to delude yourself into thinking yo are not.

Ok. I guess that about settles it.

Me I’m off to work as soon as I can find someone smart enough to dress me this morning. If I dress myself I seem to put my underwear on the outside, shirt inside out, stuff like that.

The best you can do is take something way out of context chap? That’s quite disappointing and kinda beneath you.

Clearly that comment is in regards to the kinds of cases your wife may or may not participate in and has nothing to do with the topic in general.

But given that is apparently the best you can do at this point, slide over to trying to take me down by taking a few sentences way out of context instead of engage in the dialog, I’d say I’ve won this round counselor.

When you resort to juvenile strategies such as your last post I agree the dialog is over.

You are FOR tort reform? Well I guess I sure missed that. My apologies. Please, and seriously, lay out for us what chap’s tort reform looks like. I’d like to see what you would propose.

“actual debate and refuses to substantiate his claim in any way.”

Sorry chap but that is incorrect. Time and time again you ridiculed what I did point out. You can’t both ridicule that something and then say nothing was “claimed” at the same time.

I’ve pointed out several things. What I have refused to do is take what you’ve offered and allowed you to frame the conversation. That means you bail? Ok. That’s what a loser does in my book. IF you can’t frame the dialog you quit it?

I will repeat myself.

To lower health care cost the cost of doing business needs to be lowered. To lower the cost of doing business the cost of malpractice insurance needs to come down. One of the ways malpractice insurance cost comes down is tort reform.

Can’t seem to find any fault with that logic and I’m not sure how I’m suppose to substantiate that. Even offered that “tort reform” should include rate reductions for the insurance industry.

“Did your extensive experience in this issue lead you to any conclusions as to their effect?”

Nope. Don’t care. Not needed to be for tort reform.

I don’t need extended studies to prove the “rightness” of that logic.

I don’t need specifics to justify my observation.

I think that just about does it for this topic.

Nope. Don’t care. Not needed to be for tort reform. You don’t seem to understand chap. We get it. You want to frame the conversation by defining what is or what “matters” in the dialog. Ok. That’s how lawyering works. Doing so doesn’t make you right. It makes you a lawyer.

To lower health care cost the cost of doing business needs to be lowered. To lower the cost of doing business the cost of malpractice insurance needs to come down. One of the ways malpractice insurance cost comes down is tort reform.

I don’t need extended studies to prove the “rightness” of that logic.

There are other things and they need to be included, risk management, self policing, etc., but tort reform has to be in the mix. IF we are serious about lowering health care cost.

There are also other ways to ensure patient care meets quality standards besides law suits.

Again IF the value is patient quality care.

Reimbursement levels are dropping like a lead balloon. Expecting more staff, better trained staff, all combining to equal quality of care is lunacy IF we don’t do something about lowering the cost of doing business.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6651903.html

And exactly what types of cases you or your wife participate in particular is irrelevant in regards to the only point I’ve made about it. It has been a general point regarding your bias. I don’t need specifics to justify my observation.

I too have the same bias in play. As a nurse I do not want socialized medicine. In part because in places where socialized medicine is in play, nursing salaries are lower. I don’t want my income to drop. Of course I’m against socialized medicine.

It is no crime to have a bias when it comes to protecting ones income.

Just don’t expect us to act like you don’t have a bias about it chap.