Comments on: Does the Health-Care Bill Undo Texas Tort Reform?

By: Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson

Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:18:00 +0000

Today’s medical professional liability system is too adversarial and too expensive. There are alternatives. More at http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=1779

By: Sparky

Sparky — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:49:10 +0000

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?

By: Candace Evans

Candace Evans — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:23:26 +0000

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!

By: CLS

CLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:54:59 +0000

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.

By: Sparky

Sparky — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:51:16 +0000

@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?

By: Sparky

Sparky — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:43:29 +0000

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.

By: Sammy

Sammy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:43:06 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:27:36 +0000

@Candance, but isn’t it strange that since the insurance premiums went down, the actual cost to the patient went up, WAY UP. huh.

By: CLS

CLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:09:45 +0000

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.

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:55:02 +0000

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.