When the malpractice insurance can cost well over $100k a year of course it effects the costs.
Brian Send a noteboard - 30/09/2009 06:21:29 AM
The frivolous law suits for malpractice and other types of tort are a major drain on the health care system and result in dramatically higher health care costs across the board. Between the cost of malpractice insurance, and the amount of money spent on settlements in the various lawsuits against the health care industry, it becomes nearly impossible for them to charge any less than they currently do for health care.
doctors will still be required to carry malpractice insurance whether they are publicly subsidized or in private insurance groups, so how is tort reform going to reduce costs on this particular example? that's like saying requiring drivers to carry car insurance drives up the price of cars across the board. doctors are *required* to have malpractice insurance or else they can't practice. otherwise they could give bad diagnoses and treatment and not have any repercussion because of it.
i don't doubt there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits brought every year against doctors, but i can't believe that there are so many that the lawsuits alone are driving up costs. and if a lawsuit is that frivolous, why aren't they being thrown out? i've gotta think the judicial review process can catch most of these before they even get to court.
Sure the judicial review process catches some of the frivolous lawsuits, but plenty of them slip by, and then the decision is left to a jury. Juries have shown a tendency to award huge sums of money for pain and suffering in these cases. And those are just the cases that actually go before the court. For every case that actually goes to court, how many do you think are settled before they ever get to that point?
Of course there has to be some system out there to make sure that doctors are doing their jobs properly, but that system already is in place. There are medical review boards, and a doctor that has been shown to be incompetent will not be permitted to continue practicing medicine. That is the theory at least, in practice that is not how it usually works. More often than not all but the most serious of transgressions are swept under the rug and never really dealt with. If there is reform to malpractice and tort law, there needs to be reform to disciplinary proceedings against doctors to go along with it.
If the cost of insurance is controlled, and the amount of money spent on settlements is reduced, the cost of health care can be reduced as well. The goal of tort should be to make the other party whole again, not to make the person suing another party rich. As it stands right now, it becomes a question of how much money can I make off of this mistake, rather than what will put me back to where I was before. I'm not saying that these are the only steps that should be taken to fix the problems in the health care industry, but they are the most obvious to me.
Tort reform isn't the only thing that drives health care costs...not by a long shot. But the prohibitive cost of malpractice insurance, and other forms of tort definitely help to drive the cost of health care. Perhaps I overstated my case when I said that reform will dramatically reduce health care costs, but no matter how you look at it, it would help to reduce costs for health care providers, which in turn will help reduce costs to patients.
Hospitals and health care providers need some help as well, that much is obvious. I mean many hospitals rely on donations just to stay open and to purchase the newest and best equipment that is available. Hospitals are going broke even with the amount of money they charge for care, and people are going broke trying to pay for health care....somewhere something is obviously very broken within our health care system. My statement was not meant to be an all inclusive method of fixing all the problems, it was more me identifying what I see to be a couple of the biggest problems out there.
There are fundamental flaws within our health care system, and it needs some serious reforms to become a system that works. What I personally would like to see from the government is for them to take their time on these reforms. They aren't going to cure the system's ills overnight, and a measured approach that researches the problems and actually works to cure them is what I'd like to see, rather than us applying a band-aid and then in 25 years having to apply another band-aid. I would be hard pressed to believe that a bill that has been worked on for a couple of months is going to fix a system that has been broken for decades.
Senate Finance Committee Votes Against Government-Run Health Insurance Plan
29/09/2009 09:08:40 PM
- 763 Views
I just hope this doesn't squash all health-care reform attempts
29/09/2009 09:12:15 PM
- 486 Views
It definitely needs work, but not scrapped.....
29/09/2009 09:16:32 PM
- 491 Views
Opinion polls with health care have huge swings depending on how it's phrased
29/09/2009 09:28:28 PM
- 560 Views
Polls are horrid evidence in my mind
29/09/2009 09:32:58 PM
- 488 Views
Re: Polls are horrid evidence in my mind
29/09/2009 10:12:26 PM
- 655 Views
Not that I totally disagree with you, but that being said
29/09/2009 10:29:13 PM
- 443 Views
Re: Not that I totally disagree with you, but that being said
29/09/2009 11:21:21 PM
- 541 Views
Re: Not that I totally disagree with you, but that being said
29/09/2009 11:40:42 PM
- 549 Views
his statements on health care are precisely my point, but much more well stated. *NM*
29/09/2009 11:54:29 PM
- 204 Views
Difference is that the law is subject to more checks and balances than the whims of a CEO
29/09/2009 11:44:58 PM
- 540 Views
Re: Difference is that the law is subject to more checks and balances than the whims of a CEO
30/09/2009 12:28:36 AM
- 522 Views
that the private sector has a long history of abusing both customer and employee *NM*
30/09/2009 03:46:03 AM
- 198 Views
That's indisbutable
30/09/2009 05:55:45 PM
- 510 Views
It doesn't work at all
30/09/2009 04:27:44 AM
- 548 Views
i have yet to see any evidence of malpractice insurance being a driving cost of health care
30/09/2009 05:27:34 AM
- 557 Views
When the malpractice insurance can cost well over $100k a year of course it effects the costs.
30/09/2009 06:21:29 AM
- 537 Views
it's not THAT they pay malpractice
30/09/2009 02:00:04 PM
- 420 Views
but doctors are *required* to buy malpractice insurance
30/09/2009 04:13:08 PM
- 469 Views
that's completely moot to the situation malpractice insurance causes.
30/09/2009 04:21:42 PM
- 436 Views
hooray, we're going to continue in mediocrity when it comes to our health
29/09/2009 10:15:00 PM
- 548 Views
That is a decade old and horribly discredited citation
29/09/2009 11:46:51 PM
- 629 Views
regardless, we still spend a lot more on health care while having too many uncovered people
29/09/2009 11:56:24 PM
- 460 Views
My objection, in this context, is strictly about references
30/09/2009 12:13:40 AM
- 466 Views
i understand your point about the reference
30/09/2009 12:54:25 AM
- 510 Views
Re: i understand your point about the reference
30/09/2009 01:15:30 AM
- 568 Views
Re: i understand your point about the reference
30/09/2009 12:24:45 PM
- 554 Views
Re: i understand your point about the reference
30/09/2009 06:29:09 PM
- 544 Views
Re: i understand your point about the reference
30/09/2009 10:57:36 PM
- 524 Views
Interesting...
01/10/2009 12:09:35 AM
- 459 Views
Hooray! The government isn't going to get directly involved and make HC even worse! *NM*
30/09/2009 01:03:50 AM
- 199 Views