Medical Malpractice

What percentage of health care costs could be saved with Tort reform?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.torts18dec18,0,1282218.story "If you're talking about payments made on behalf of doctors or hospitals to plaintiffs, that's actually a drop in the bucket compared to the nation's $2.2 trillion in health care costs," said Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University.

Public Comments

1. trillions but democrats don't believe in it
2. The amount isn't determinable. Health care costs are inflated out of FEAR of a law suit, not from real law suits.
3. No one really knows, but why do some doctors pay nearly $1 million annually for malpractice insurance? The patients actually pay all their expenses.
4. Well, take into account that $400 billion is wasted each year on tests and procedures preformed for no reason other than to avoid malpractice lawsuits. So I'd say proper tort reform (not that our government is capable of doing anything properly) would chop anywhere from 10-20% off of health care costs. That's a pretty big chunk for one thing.
5. It's the malpractice insurance payments that are the killers. These payments are made to insurance companies. Before you vilify the insurance companies... The payments made by insurance companies to either settle out of court or court costs is approximately 18-26%. Insurance companies...particularly medical insurance insurance companies are not doing well financially.
6. next time your Doctor leaves his scapal in you kidney DONT SUE just get a BETTER JOB
7. It's not the most dominant factor, but it does stick out like a sore thumb if you bring up the topic of wasteful spending in health care. "In 2005, Missouri capped non-economic damages at $350,000 per defendant and made it more difficult for cases to be filed in Jackson County and St. Louis -- venues seen as favorable to plaintiffs. "From my perspective, that was one of the best things ever to happen in the state of Missouri," said Kansas City ophthalmologist John Hagen, an outspoken supporter of tort reform. "It not only enabled us to retain physicians but to recruit new ones." Since the 2005 reforms in Missouri, malpractice premiums at Hagen's practice have fallen 24 percent -- a decline he attributes to the reforms. Reintjes said his premiums have declined 30 percent. " Malpractice premiums can be expensive, and a 20-30% discount is not small change.
8. I think they passed it in MO and TX and last I heard it had little impact on insurance costs for people... it helped doctor's malpractice insurance, but not regular people's insurance costs...
9. It is going to depend on the specialty of the doc. Malpractice for primary care docs pales in comparison with Neurosurgeons'. Since, in aggregate, way more is spent on primary care than neurosurgery, there wont be as much savings as some would believe.
10. That depends on what you mean by tort reform. The current system is not a deterrent to bad medicine or even willful negligence. The doctors who are a danger to patients are not removed. Will the costs of health care go down if doctors (and hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) that mess up are not able to be taken to court? Someone will still have to pay lifetime health care costs of a patient who is disabled for life due to negligence. Whether this is paid by the patient, the patient's family, or the government, someone will pay it.
11. It would do nothing to allow people with pre-existing conditions to be able to buy insurance.