Will Patient's Rights Survive Health Care Reform?

Disclosure: I'm proud to be working with the American Association for Justice to protect patients' rights.

With the passage of Health Care Reform in the House, the stakes are rising by the day. As we saw this weekend with the adoption of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, changes to the bill can be made with blinding speed and millions of Americans can lose out in hours.

Thanks to a well-funded and decades long campaign by the insurance companies, "tort reform" -- the systematic denial of fundamental legal rights to patients harmed by medical negligence -- always looms when a heavily lobbied Congress talks about health care.

As Joanne Doroshow wrote on Huffington Post:

If you listened to the rants and harangues of those trying to kill the House health care bill on Saturday, you couldn't miss the endless blathering about tort reform, a term that almost no one really understands unless you happen to be a victim of medical malpractice or corporate wrongdoing. And then, you know.

Tort "reform" is a doozy of a misnomer. There is certainly nothing positive or beneficial about it. Tort reform laws, which now exist it nearly every state (although you'd never guess that after listening to those complaining how much we need it), make it more difficult for average people who have been injured, assaulted, or harmed in any way, to sue those responsible. The tort reform movement was created and funded by insurance companies, manufacturers of dangerous products, the tobacco industry, the medical profession, and other industries and professions. This movement is backed by enormous sums of money funneled primarily into conservative "think-tanks," public relations, polling and lobbying firms. Tort reforms always hurt patients, consumers and average people. They are also extremely dangerous for the rest of us.

The video at the top of this post is part of an effort to tell the stories of the real people whose lives are devastated by medical malpractice and "tort reform". Learn more at 98,000Reasons.org.

Doroshow also tells this tragic tale of karma:
In 1975, Indiana lobbyist Frank Cornelius, whose clients included the Insurance Institute of Indiana, helped secure passage of "tort reform" in Indiana. As he wrote in the New York Times on October 7, 1994:

I argued successfully that such limits would reduce health-care costs and encourage physicians to stay in Indiana -- the same sort of arguments that now underpin the medical industry's call for national malpractice reform. Today, from my wheelchair, I rue that accomplishment.

That is because beginning in 1989, Cornelius experienced a series of medical catastrophes - malpractice - that resulted in his "wheelchair confinement, respirator-assisted breathing and constant physical pain." The law he helped pass prevented him from receiving enough compensation for this. He has since died.



Display:


CBO Scores Tort Reform (none / 0)

Director's Blog: CBO's Analysis of the Effects of Proposals to Limit Costs Related to Medical Malpractice ("Tort Reform")

CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services.

The Letter: Tort Reform

Bottom line. About 40% of the savings goes right into doctor's pockets as taxable income and about of third of that comes to the Treasury in the form of tax. But in terms of bending the cost curve on actual supply of medical costs we get less than a third of one percent of overall health care cost savings at the exchange of throwing away Patients Rights.

That is not bending the cost curve. And the CBO estimate of 0.3% in savings is about 1% of that claimed by tort reform proponents who routinely claim 30% savings from elimination of defensive medicine.

Tort Reform: good news for Surgeons eying  Jaguar prices, not so good for anyone else.


by Bruce Webb on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:50:09 PM EST

Remember (none / 0)

doctors need to clear their salary + $200,000-$300,000 to cover malpractice insurance.

So I really don't think it is right to view doctors as the next "big tobacco".


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:54:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The best tort reform (none / 0)

would be to go to a single payer system since most compensatory damages are to pay for health care.  We could also as a society afford to be more stingy with the punitive damages at the point.

Also, I don't like lumping the medical profession in with the big evil companies RE: tort reform.  My dad moved several times because he couldn't bring in enough money to cover his premiums.  He was in a specialty where he was guaranteed to get sued and then the insurance company has an incentive to settle.

I think the wingnut obsession with it is overstated but in general, life could be made easier on doctors.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:50:40 PM EST

Re: The best tort reform (none / 0)

for 'the' read 'that'


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The best tort reform (2.00 / 1)

When you consider that in states like CT for example, OB's are beign driven out of business my malpractice insurance, than oen needs to consider how to relieve that pressure. Malpractice premiums are absurdly high.


by BuckeyeBlogger on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Malpractice and other liability premiums (none / 0)

spike every time the market suffers a major correction. I used to work in the building department and our contractors were all bitching about how their premiums jumped big-time. At the same time the newspapers were full of stories about increases in mal-practice premiums. But it wasn't like there was any proof of some spike in actual claims on either the medical or construction side. And I am not a big believer in coincidences.

The solution might be to impose the same kind of controls on Mal-Practice Insurance as this bill does on Health Insurance that is actually set enforceable Insurance Loss Ratios. Private health insurance is now having typical MLRs of under 80% meaning that 20 cents of every premium dollar is going to administration, marketing, executive compensation and profits. This is down more than 10 points from the industry standard a little more than a decade ago. Before we bite too hard on tort reform maybe we should be checking on what percentage of those malpractice insurance premium dollars actually get paid out in claims. Because you can bet the same dynamic is in play.


by Bruce Webb on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Malpractice and other liability premiums (none / 0)

Keep in mind I'm not universally for tort reform.  However, I think when the subject is just punitive damages (as it would be in a single payer system), one could afford to really get tough and get tough in ways that wouldn't bleed over to other types of suits.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Malpractice and other liability premiums (none / 0)

Why are punitive damages an issue?  Insurance policies don't cover punitive damages.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.