Missing from Healthcare Reform

[irwincur]

It is nice and all to work on healthcare reform, and to try to convince the people that it will lower the real costs of healthcare. But honestly, can we even consider healthcare reform without also looking at Tort Law. There is a reason, beyond the drugs and costly insurance policies that out HC is so dammed expensive. In 2008 estimates range from $200 to $270 billion go to tort law payouts - mostly related to malpractice cases.

Seriously, this causes the price of insurance to rise, the price of running a practice to rise, and the price of drugs to rise. After all, even after a drug manufacturer gets total government FDA approval - they can still be hung to dry if something goes wrong. Why can't the government get sued, they were the ones to OK the product and move it along.

If the Democrats really want to be serious about reform, they should start by talking to one of their largest donor groups - tort lawayers. But, lets be honest. They won't. UHC will pass, and nothing will be solved. The price of HC will still increase and tort lawyers will be making more and more off of their government benefactors. Direct pipeline to the cash.

 

[dainthomas]

Because a huge proportion of large malpractice awards are against a small percentage of crappy doctors. The AMA needs to allow medical schools to graduate more doctors and also take harsher action against doctors that end up being incompetent.

 

[BarrySotero]

Trail lawyers were Obama's #1 donation bundlers. Obama was never serious about addressing actual causes of health costs. He doesn't even care about sick people. Obamcare is about getting control over huge portion of economy and the people both working in it and being served by it. It's about getting the gov in peoples lives and making them dependent on gov. All kinds of control is available once the gov has your health care in their hands. What a mess.

 

[irwincur]

Because a huge proportion of large malpractice awards are against a small percentage of crappy doctors.

Is going to UHC and most likely reducing the pay of doctors really going to help the quality of those that make it through. What about the obvious drop in demand to be a doctor when not only will your pay be controlled, but you will still have the excessive tort insurance costs. Do you think the Yankees would be any good if they didn't pay the highest payroll?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Trail lawyers were Obama's #1 donation bundlers. Obama was never serious about addressing actual causes of health costs. He doesn't even care about sick people. Obamcare is about getting control over huge portion of economy and the people both working in it and being served by it. It's about getting the gov in peoples lives and making them dependent on gov. All kinds of control is available once the gov has your health care in their hands. What a mess.

do you sleep at night? If I thought all of this I would have handguns and board up my windows.

 

[Paddington]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Because a huge proportion of large malpractice awards are against a small percentage of crappy doctors. The AMA needs to allow medical schools to graduate more doctors and also take harsher action against doctors that end up being incompetent.

What those payouts do though is force everyone to do a lot of defensive medicine.

For example, almost everyone over the age of 55 who comes into the ED with chest pain will get admitted. This is because missed coronary artery disease (i.e. a future heart attack) will result in a big lawsuit. Anyway, 90% of these people have non-cardiac chest pain. But everyone has to be admitted to the Stepdown unit (which costs even more than the usual $2000 a day) and get a stress test. Overall, this is at least $4,000. This is a very common presentation, and a typical hospital probably gets 10-20 of these patients alone each day.

Even people who go to their doctor's offices with very obvious non-cardiac chest pain (e.g. heartburn), usually end up getting sent to the ED if they're over 55, and to make matters worse, typically an ambulance is called to take them there even if they're completely stable. This is because there's an overlap in symptoms between heartburn and myocardial infarction (kind of like how men are on average taller than women, but there's still an overlap in heights). If you miss that one case of atypical myocardial infarction (which in the office had all the classic signs/symptoms of reflux or costochondritis or whatever), you get hit with a massive lawsuit.

The ones that pay for all these healthcare costs are you. These old people don't work BTW. This is a significant chunk of what your taxes go for.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Paddington

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Because a huge proportion of large malpractice awards are against a small percentage of crappy doctors. The AMA needs to allow medical schools to graduate more doctors and also take harsher action against doctors that end up being incompetent.

What those payouts do though is force everyone to do a lot of defensive medicine.

Correct-o! A lot of tests get run not because they're medically unnecessary, but because they're needed in case legal proceedings are ever considered in the future. I don't know if caps are the way to solve this problem, but a problem certainly exists.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Maybe if there weren't 100k needless deaths in hospitals each year you would have a point.

Medical facilities and doctors should be required to post their medical histories and clean up their own acts - then you may discuss tort reform.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Maybe if there weren't 100k needless deaths in hospitals each year you would have a point.

Medical facilities and doctors should be required to post their medical histories and clean up their own acts - then you may discuss tort reform.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Tort reform will never happen under a democrat leadership. Big law brings in about 60 billion a quarter in settlements. That is a lot of donation money to make sure no meanignful tort reform is done.

And in this healthcare makeover to leave out tort reform is pretty fucking stupid. Almost as stupid as requiring private and public insurance have no predefined clauses and then say it will lower costs lol.

 

[DaveSimmons]

After all, even after a drug manufacturer gets total government FDA approval - they can still be hung to dry if something goes wrong. Why can't the government get sued, they were the ones to OK the product and move it along.

So more regulation of drug companies is the answer?

As I understand it, and feel free to correct me, oversight of the drug companies was lessened, which led to the approval of drugs with serious side-effects, which led to big payouts to victims or their families.

Not terribly different from the financial markets: "Government oversight = bad, self-regulation = good, just leave us alone to be good capitalists. Trust us, we know what we're doing."

 

[ElFenix]

no, obama certainly didn't talk about tort reform to reduce 'cover my ass' testing before the AMA just a week ago. nope, he didn't.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It is nice and all to work on healthcare reform, and to try to convince the people that it will lower the real costs of healthcare. But honestly, can we even consider healthcare reform without also looking at Tort Law. There is a reason, beyond the drugs and costly insurance policies that out HC is so dammed expensive. In 2008 estimates range from $200 to $270 billion go to tort law payouts - mostly related to malpractice cases.

Seriously, this causes the price of insurance to rise, the price of running a practice to rise, and the price of drugs to rise. After all, even after a drug manufacturer gets total government FDA approval - they can still be hung to dry if something goes wrong. Why can't the government get sued, they were the ones to OK the product and move it along.

If the Democrats really want to be serious about reform, they should start by talking to one of their largest donor groups - tort lawayers. But, lets be honest. They won't. UHC will pass, and nothing will be solved. The price of HC will still increase and tort lawyers will be making more and more off of their government benefactors. Direct pipeline to the cash.

Way to use misleading statistics. Medical malpractice in both tort costs and malpractice premiums comes up to a whopping two percent of health care spending according to the CBO. If you eliminated it all tomorrow, (which would be insane) you would make a almost meaningless dent in our health care problem. Furthermore, the CBO finds that there are no statistically significant savings from the restriction of tort liabilities in terms of 'defensive medicine'.

Anyone who tells you that tort lawyers are a significant cause of our health care problems is full of shit. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's simply insignificant.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: irwincur
It is nice and all to work on healthcare reform, and to try to convince the people that it will lower the real costs of healthcare. But honestly, can we even consider healthcare reform without also looking at Tort Law. There is a reason, beyond the drugs and costly insurance policies that out HC is so dammed expensive. In 2008 estimates range from $200 to $270 billion go to tort law payouts - mostly related to malpractice cases.

Seriously, this causes the price of insurance to rise, the price of running a practice to rise, and the price of drugs to rise. After all, even after a drug manufacturer gets total government FDA approval - they can still be hung to dry if something goes wrong. Why can't the government get sued, they were the ones to OK the product and move it along.

If the Democrats really want to be serious about reform, they should start by talking to one of their largest donor groups - tort lawayers. But, lets be honest. They won't. UHC will pass, and nothing will be solved. The price of HC will still increase and tort lawyers will be making more and more off of their government benefactors. Direct pipeline to the cash.

Way to use misleading statistics. Medical malpractice in both tort costs and malpractice premiums comes up to a whopping two percent of health care spending according to the CBO. If you eliminated it all tomorrow, (which would be insane) you would make a almost meaningless dent in our health care problem. Furthermore, the CBO finds that there are no statistically significant savings from the restriction of tort liabilities in terms of 'defensive medicine'.

Anyone who tells you that tort lawyers are a significant cause of our health care problems is full of shit. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's simply insignificant.

Freakin awesome post.
Will the OP change his post and admit he is wrong?
Bwahhh! Of course not. He probably heard it on Fox News so it has to be true.

btw if you really want to lop off a lot of the cost of health insurance set a limit as to how much overhead a health insurance company can charge.
Medicare spends about 2-3 percent of premiums on overhead. Many well run, for profit, health insurance plans do it for less than about 6-7 percent.
However, HUNDREDS of health insurance companies charge up to 30-35 percent of your premiums to "overhead" (salaries, advertising, company planes, etc)

 

[Slew Foot]

Physician salaries are only 3-5% of total healthcare spending but everyone seems to want to chop that to pieces. Its not necessarily the cost of the lawsuits, but the cost of the unnecessary procedures and tests ordered to avoid lawsuits.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Way to use misleading statistics. Medical malpractice in both tort costs and malpractice premiums comes up to a whopping two percent of health care spending according to the CBO. If you eliminated it all tomorrow, (which would be insane) you would make a almost meaningless dent in our health care problem. Furthermore, the CBO finds that there are no statistically significant savings from the restriction of tort liabilities in terms of 'defensive medicine'.

Anyone who tells you that tort lawyers are a significant cause of our health care problems is full of shit. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's simply insignificant.

What your 2% chart fails to show what Paddington mentioned above. It DOES NOT take into account the costs of "Defensive Medicine" What he describes happens everyday in the majority of ER's. If you're diabetic or over 55 with the complaint of chest pain you're pretty much guaranteed at least a 1 day hospital stay with expensive tests anywhere from a stress test to a >$5000 Angiogram with significant risks to the patient. I do part-time in-hospital work and at least 90+% percent of these cases did not have a heart attack and could've just been sent home.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Way to use misleading statistics. Medical malpractice in both tort costs and malpractice premiums comes up to a whopping two percent of health care spending according to the CBO. If you eliminated it all tomorrow, (which would be insane) you would make a almost meaningless dent in our health care problem. Furthermore, the CBO finds that there are no statistically significant savings from the restriction of tort liabilities in terms of 'defensive medicine'.

Anyone who tells you that tort lawyers are a significant cause of our health care problems is full of shit. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's simply insignificant.

What your 2% chart fails to show what Paddington mentioned above. It DOES NOT take into account the costs of "Defensive Medicine" What he describes happens everyday in the majority of ER's. If you're diabetic or over 55 you're pretty much guaranteed at least a 1 day hospital stay with expensive tests anywhere from a stress test to a >$5000 Angiogram with significant risks to the patient. I do part-time in-hospital work and at least 90+% percent of these cases did not have a heart attack and could've just been sent home.

And if you read the CBO study it covers defensive medicine, finding that across all health care spending there is no statistically significant change in medical spending related to restriction of tort liability.

My post specifically mentioned this.

 

[Pneumothorax]

If malpractice lawsuit awards are such a small amount in total costs, then why is there no legislation on reducing the costs of malpractice insurance?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
If malpractice lawsuit awards are such a small amount in total costs, then why is there no legislation on reducing the costs of malpractice insurance?

I don't know, maybe you should call your congressman?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
If malpractice lawsuit awards are such a small amount in total costs, then why is there no legislation on reducing the costs of malpractice insurance?

A big part of the problem is how rates are determined. The doctor's insurance goes up regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[duragezic]

So what parts of medicine make it cost so ridiculously much? If physician's salaries and medical malpractice (two things I hear mentioned as costing so much) are only a few % of the cost each, where is it from?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: duragezic
So what parts of medicine make it cost so ridiculously much? If physician's salaries and medical malpractice (two things I hear mentioned as costing so much) are only a few % of the cost each, where is it from?

A huge amount of your health insurance premium is going to "overhead" meaning advertising, executive perks, profit, claims processing, etc.
I can't remember where I saw it but if all the health insurnance companies had the overhead of the top 20 percent on average premiums would drop 15 percent overnight.
Yes, you heard that right, 15 percent.
That's HUGE

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Way to use misleading statistics. Medical malpractice in both tort costs and malpractice premiums comes up to a whopping two percent of health care spending according to the CBO. If you eliminated it all tomorrow, (which would be insane) you would make a almost meaningless dent in our health care problem. Furthermore, the CBO finds that there are no statistically significant savings from the restriction of tort liabilities in terms of 'defensive medicine'.

Anyone who tells you that tort lawyers are a significant cause of our health care problems is full of shit. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's simply insignificant.

What your 2% chart fails to show what Paddington mentioned above. It DOES NOT take into account the costs of "Defensive Medicine" What he describes happens everyday in the majority of ER's. If you're diabetic or over 55 you're pretty much guaranteed at least a 1 day hospital stay with expensive tests anywhere from a stress test to a >$5000 Angiogram with significant risks to the patient. I do part-time in-hospital work and at least 90+% percent of these cases did not have a heart attack and could've just been sent home.

And if you read the CBO study it covers defensive medicine, finding that across all health care spending there is no statistically significant change in medical spending related to restriction of tort liability.

My post specifically mentioned this.

Funny, I found another cbo report that was much more cryptic but had a shitload of information. Stupid me spent the night glancing over it thinking it was the same one you linked. Now I have to read this one to actually comment.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Trail lawyers were Obama's #1 donation bundlers. Obama was never serious about addressing actual causes of health costs. He doesn't even care about sick people. Obamcare is about getting control over huge portion of economy and the people both working in it and being served by it. It's about getting the gov in peoples lives and making them dependent on gov. All kinds of control is available once the gov has your health care in their hands. What a mess.

do you sleep at night? If I thought all of this I would have handguns and board up my windows.

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here
in the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good
Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and
Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're
good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing
to the soil.

You know that Johnny Werzner kid - the kid who delivers papers in the
neighborhood? He's a fine kid. Some of the neighbors say he smokes
crack, but I don't believe it. Anyway, for his 10th birthday, all he
wanted was a burrow owl, just like his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow
owl. I'll never ask for anything else as long as I live". So the guy
breaks down and buys him a burrow owl. Anyway at 10:30 the other night I
go out into my yard and there's the Werzner kid looking up in the tree. I
said, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I'm looking for my burrow
owl." I say, "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a
burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground! Why the hell do you think they
call it a burrow owl, anyway?!" Now Stuart, do you think a kid like that
is gonna know what the queers are doing to the soil?

I first became aware of this, about 10 years ago, the summer my oldest boy
Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival that comes to town every year?
Well this year it came with a ride called the Mixer. The man said "Keep
your head and arms inside the mixer at all times." But Bill Jr., he was a
daredevil, just like his old man. He was leaning out saying, "Hey
everybody! Look at me, look at me!" POW! He was decapitated. They found
his head over by the snowcone concession. A few days after that, I open
up the mail and there's a pamphlet in there, from Pueblo, Colorado. And
it's addressed to Bill Jr. And it's entitled, "Do you know what the
queers are doing to our soil?"

Now Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big
underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example.
Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it, you
can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming.
But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know it's the queers.
They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay
Martians. I swear to God.

You know what Stuart, I like you. You're not like the other people, here
in the trailer park.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: irwincur
It is nice and all to work on healthcare reform, and to try to convince the people that it will lower the real costs of healthcare. But honestly, can we even consider healthcare reform without also looking at Tort Law. There is a reason, beyond the drugs and costly insurance policies that out HC is so dammed expensive. In 2008 estimates range from $200 to $270 billion go to tort law payouts - mostly related to malpractice cases.

Seriously, this causes the price of insurance to rise, the price of running a practice to rise, and the price of drugs to rise. After all, even after a drug manufacturer gets total government FDA approval - they can still be hung to dry if something goes wrong. Why can't the government get sued, they were the ones to OK the product and move it along.

If the Democrats really want to be serious about reform, they should start by talking to one of their largest donor groups - tort lawayers. But, lets be honest. They won't. UHC will pass, and nothing will be solved. The price of HC will still increase and tort lawyers will be making more and more off of their government benefactors. Direct pipeline to the cash.

Way to use misleading statistics. Medical malpractice in both tort costs and malpractice premiums comes up to a whopping two percent of health care spending according to the CBO. If you eliminated it all tomorrow, (which would be insane) you would make a almost meaningless dent in our health care problem. Furthermore, the CBO finds that there are no statistically significant savings from the restriction of tort liabilities in terms of 'defensive medicine'.

Anyone who tells you that tort lawyers are a significant cause of our health care problems is full of shit. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's simply insignificant.

I have to agree with this, for the following reason:
Tort law (which includes medical malpractice) is a state issue, and some states have in fact already passed laws restricting the award of non-specific damages, such as 'pain and suffering' compensation (see Texas as an example). However, despite those legal reforms, those states haven't seen an significant decrease in the rate of growth of health care spending. I used to think otherwise, but the facts don't really suggest malpractice-related issues are a big factor in the rise of healthcare costs.