Does the Health-Care Bill Undo Texas Tort Reform?
David Frum thinks so, citing Section 2531(4)b of the bill. This is one of many provisions that cannot be allowed to make it through the Senate. That brings us to an interesting point: what’s the best strategy for eliminating it?
The Republicans seem to be intent on stonewalling, as they did in the House. The danger is that the Democrats only need to peel off one or two votes to get their 60 supermajority. If that happens, all we can do is hope that tort reform is a bargaining chip. But with so many giant flaws in the House version to be fixed, the senator peeling off (hello, Olympia Snowe) could — and does — have other priorities. But what if 5 or so Republicans said, we’ll vote for your bill if you change these 10, 15, or 20 things — and they were serious, not just posturing (as Republicans tend to do).
They’d get what they wanted. Section 2541(4)b would be history.
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Although tort reform hasn’t really proven to do squat about insurance/medical costs, it would be nice for the Republicans to start participating in this. Just getting anti-government crazies riled up isn’t really helping to get anything meaningful accomplished.
It’s sad that politicians (on both sides) are too focused on their own reelections than actually getting anything meaningful accomplished. To hear these goobers get on TV and start every statement with “The American people want…” when they don’t have a clue/don’t care what this country actually wants or needs is reprehensible.
I think we could use a few fewer flag pins and fake patriotism and more REAL patriotism and a can-do spirit.
Wick,
I love you guys here at Frontburner, but in the rush to ask your question you fail to a) state what this section of the bill actually says b) why it “cannot be allowed to make it through the Senate” and c) what the many “giant flaws” actually are.
For anyone interested, here is how the article quotes section 2531(4)b:
“The new health bill will empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to states that reform their medical malpractice systems. There are just two conditions: Those reforms must not ‘limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.’”
If I were a moderate Democrat I would threaten to block the vote on this bill over this issue, much less a Republican. That being said, I’m assuming Harry Reid is currently tracking down any perceived “maybes” to determine what needs to be included / excluded (see Stupak amendment) before proceeding with the actual vote on the Senate floor. Here’s hoping that someone’s vote hinges on whether this section is removed from the final bill.
I beg your pardon, Sammy. Tort reform was responsible for a $10,000 decrease in my husband’s enormous annual malpractice bill — OB/GYN, need I say more?— and for keeping it from creeping upwards as it did every year he has practiced. What infuriates me is the lack of inclusion of tort reform in our “comprehensive health care reform” — what is comprehensive without it? I want to scream when I hear people tell me, oh, now in India you could go to a doctor and he could treat you with herbs and massage. Try that here, that doctor is legal toast. What good does suing doctors do anyhow? Does it actually weed out bad or sloppy docs? They just pay higher malpractice premiums and continue to practice. They can set up shop in a new state. Peer-review would be far more effective: physicians who make mistakes could obtain the training they may have missed during residency (now that residency hours are limited), go out and sin no more. The egregious could be farmed out to the insurance companies, where they sit now, denying benefits. I was recently told that the infertility specialist who planted all those embryos in Octomom has been stripped of his license. Much more effective than a lawsuit!
But who do we have in the White House and on Capitol Hill? Attorneys.
Despite Wick’s headline, I’m not sure this affects Texas tort reform.
David Frum writes: “The new health bill will empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to states that reform their medical malpractice systems. There are just two conditions: Those reforms must not ‘limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.’ ”
Texas reformed its medical malpractice laws some years ago, so obviously we wouldn’t be asking for a grant from the feds to do so; therefore, we wouldn’t be hostage to the two edicts Frum cites and Wick frets. Right?
I’m just curious as to why anyone would think that the federal government is going to “fix” the health care system in this country. A scenario where a one party bill over 1,900 pages long with promises that it will be paid for by reduction in medicare fraud and tax increases on millionaires seems like it was written for a SNL skit. The Senate can’t compromise a bad idea into a good law. National Health Care has been a good distraction though from the fraud that Washington and Wall Street pulled off.
So Texas has seen an increase in doctors, as has most states that capped liability? Nach! If I were a shoddy doctor, I would look for a state that protected my incompetence.
Actually – neurosurgeons were in such shortage that a few years ago most major Dallas hospitals could hardly keep their top trauma status. When tort reform was passed, it did not take long for the trauma hospitals to recruit neurosurgeons to Dallas from other states. If all states had it, we would not have the advantage anymore but when you have so many states with no caps, their insurance rates are almost impossible for high risk specialties.
@Candance, but isn’t it strange that since the insurance premiums went down, the actual cost to the patient went up, WAY UP. huh.
Some (emphasize “some”) recent research has shown that states that enacted tort reform showed no noticeable difference in costs of malpractice insurance OR medical costs. What that research showed was that the costs of doctors’ insurance policies went up and down with the stock market, because the insurance companies were being hit by their investment returns.
Basically, they were/are making their profits on the stock market, not on revenue from policies or losses by paying out on lawsuits.
I just find it embarrassing that our country can’t provide some kind of basic medical insurance like almost every other civilized country in the world. People shouldn’t lose their homes because they get sick.
It’s certainly true that malpractice premiums went down significantly since tort reform passed. And we’ve all noticed how much cheaper that office visit/hospitalization is, right? No? Huh, that sure is weird. Doctor is paying LESS in premiums, has LESS exposure, and is collecting the SAME. What a great gig!
I’d also remind everyone that Texas voters, in our wisdom, actually placed the non-economic damage caps into our state constitution, so that may affect things, as well.
@Candace: lots of vitriol there, but let me make two points, briefly.
1. Part of the deal that was supposed to accompany tort reform was increased enforcement of physicians by the Texas Medical Board, which had been notoriously bad about that. This increased enforcement hasn’t really happened (recent DMN story about it, in fact).
2. Peer review and licensure suspension and/or revocation is a good idea, and protects future patients from the negligent health care provider. Meanwhile, what about the family of 4 whose breadwinner is in a nursing home in persistent vegetative state because of a provider’s negligence? The answer to “what good does suing doctors do?” is that it compensates someone who has been injured by another’s negligent actions.
If I hit someone with my car and cause them to miss 2 months work and incur $25,000 in medical bills, shouldn’t I (or my insurance company) compensate them? Why shouldn’t a doctor be treated the same way, if the injury occurred due to his treatment rather than a car wreck?
Healthcare is going up too because the government already has so much control over most diagnosis that apply to Medicare. With that much control, I can tell you hospitals have many RNs in positions of data collection that requires medical expertise to document. The quality programs are raising quality and patient safety but it does contribute greatly to the costs of hospital labor costs. All healthcare is not related to the physician.
Sparky and Sammy: The physicians are getting far less from the insurers, who are busy right now lowering reimbursements even more so they can compete with the government plan. They are busy stockpiling our premiums so they can do biz as usual. Thirty cents out of every insurance dollar goes right into the insurance company’s coffers. I’m not saying we don’t need reform — we need insurance reform — but I’m saying can’t do without tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits helped steer us to these high costs. The Texas Medical Board has gotten tougher, actually. But not to worry — fewer applicants to med school, health care is going to get very cheap when we have 50% fewer docs!
I’ve been a medical malpractice defense lawyer for over ten years, and I’d say that less than 5% of the cases I’ve seen have been frivolous — the way our system is set up (with the plaintiff’s attorney paying all expenses up front and only collecting if he wins/settles), it’s too big of a financial gamble for a plaintiff’s attorney to file a frivolous suit. Add to that the procedural hoops a plaintiff must jump through that have been in place long before the latest tort reform (including filing the report of an expert before the lawsuit can get started) and the reality is that there are very, very few “frivolous suits.” A frivolous suit, in my experience, is any suit filed against the doctor, nurse, or hospital administrator to whom you’re speaking.
Also, you must believe in the free market system — if we have a doctor shortage, what do you think will happen to those medical school applications?
Today’s medical professional liability system is too adversarial and too expensive. There are alternatives. More at http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=1779