I would be remiss in this blueprint not to mention one surefire way to help reduce medical costs. It is clear if we are going to reign in the cost of health care that we must implement nationwide tort reform. If President Obama is going to credible about reigning in health care costs, then we need to implement comprehensive tort reform and reduction of medical malpractice insurance. It is difficult for the President to argue that health care is inefficient in one breath and then argue that tort reform is not necessary. If the President is going to be credible on reigning in health care costs then he must show the country that he is willing to stand up to the trial lawyers for the greater good of the country. An example of rare government pragmatism on this issue is the GM bankruptcy case, where despite heavy lobbying the government did not carve out personal injury suits from the bankruptcy estate and left all suits to be paid from “Old GM” bankruptcy estate. Thirty states, including California and Texas, currently have some form of tort reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, although economists disagree about the exact burden of legal risk, some argue that it exceeds $100 billion a year.
Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine and order additional tests in order to insulate themselves from the constant threat of lawsuit jackpots sought by patients. Malpractice lawsuits are exacerbating our health care issues by forcing doctors out of high risk professions and raising the costs for the provision of care. We suffer shortages of obstetricians and gynecologists because some doctors have to pay over $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance. Even though trial lawyers are some of Obama’s biggest supporters, if he is serious about revamping health care, then he needs to implement tort reform. Although arguments have been made that tort reform, including caps on pain and suffering awards, severely impact the ability of poor and moderate income people to obtain counsel in malpractice cases, this is just not accurate. As the laws in California and Texas illustrate, it is possible to have a cap on pain and suffering and still have a mechanism for plaintiffs to have redress in the event of an injury. If the administration is asking all Americans to make sacrifices in order to provide universal health care, then individuals will need to live with a cap on pain and suffering awards to allow us as a country to reduce our health care costs.
I feel strongly that it is un-American to stifle the free market and impose government-run health insurance for its citizens. While I do believe that dealing with uninsured Americans is an important issue, it should not be addressed at the cost of rationing care, long waits to see a doctor and government bureaucrats deciding what treatments are appropriate. The problems of socialized medicine in Canada are well documented. Ironically, one of the fastest growing business in Canada is the establishment of private medical clinics. It is well known that in certain areas of Canada, local governments expect that its citizens will come to the United States to have procedures done. While our American health care system may not be perfect, it is certainly far better than the other options out there and one that has served the American public well.
Tags: California, david brill, general, government, Health Care Reform, insurance, news, Texas, tort reform, trial lawyers
Brill's Discontent 
July 25, 2009 at 3:35 am |
I wholeheartedly agree. Democrats are obviously using their large majorities and control of all branches to push this through, but at a major cost. (If Repubs had majorities this big everywhere including the White House, they might be trying a big legislative agenda too, but I think they have a bit better record of restraint and maybe even bipartisanship in terms of also getting input from the other side). Tort reform would be a much better solution to our national healthcare than actually nationalizing healthcare, but unfortunately Dems do not seem to understand and favor equality now for everyone, even if that means the vast majority of people will have worse treatment in the form of longer lines/waits, less coverage and less access to specialists than before. I am disappointed that both parties put political ambitions above what is a better course of action, but the example is much more clear right now when adding such costs to our national debt would be irresponsible in this deep recession and after the huge stimulous spending (which the jury is still out on their effectiveness, but I am betting the same amount of tax cuts or less even, would have helped the economy more).
However, though tort reform is helpful, the problem is that is often it involves placing absolute dollar limits on claims that are the result of healthcare groups’ lobbying so that they are only responsible up to a certain amount. That’d be all well and good – except for the amounts. In CA at least, med mal maxes out at a measly $250k. Doctors will always claim it is too expensive to practice in CA and they might be right, but also may legitimate claims are not looked into since just the cost of litigating would not make a potential $250k payout max worth it for the plaintiffs, so med mal in CA is next to nothing of a practice. Perhaps doubling the amount would be better, but regardless setting any absolute figure on claims is messing with the free market and more importantly would obviously become less and less worth pursuing over time with inflation eating into that, and the legislature in no mood allow for provisions to at least have the hard number keep pace with the inflation. TX looks like they have similar dollar amount caps, and again I wonder if legitimate claims are going unpursued since the cost of hiring an attorney and litigation fees so eat into that $250k that it is just not worth going after, though perhaps it is in a wrongful death where it looks like damage caps are higher.
We definitely do not want to move to Canadian or British style health care, keep the free markets open! But to reign in costs, Americans are just going to have to eat and exercise better especially in unhealthy regions of the country like the South, and stop smoking and abusing legal and illegal drugs. Obviously these are lofty goals but America would do better to tweak the culture of unhealthiness than to have tort reform as its sole remedy against rising costs. Those claimants who do have a legitimate beef with healthcare defendants may not be entitled to the world for a lost loved one, but limiting them to $250k is a bit harsh.