Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where tort reform has been implemented, the doctors have not passed along any savings, but merely (predictably) pocketed the profits.
Pass on the savings? With the Sustainable Growth Rate abomination poised to reduce Medicare payments another 20% tacked on to basically yearly payment reductions for the past 10 years ... no net savings to pass on. (On top of that, most commercial insurance reimbursement rates are tied to the Medicare rates so you can't really ever escape.) Besides, the end result is supposed to be less unnecessary care/testing - not 'here's some money out of my pocket.'
Also, there's another rarely mentioned issue that might be dampening the effect of tort reform - the dreaded Press-Ganey score. These days healthcare has taken on much more of a 'customer' service slant than I think is healthy - because in the end you're dealing with patients not customers (and usually at least 3 other members of their family as well.) Oftentimes the decisions and happenings in medical care don't lend themselves to a warm fuzzy/customer-always-right mentality. This is more of a commentary on our society, and I'm not really sure what can be done to change it.
Pass on the savings? With the Sustainable Growth Rate abomination poised to reduce Medicare payments another 20% tacked on to basically yearly payment reductions for the past 10 years ... no net savings to pass on. (On top of that, most commercial insurance reimbursement rates are tied to the Medicare rates so you can't really ever escape.) Besides, the end result is supposed to be less unnecessary care/testing - not 'here's some money out of my pocket.'
You were just chirping away about the $200,000 malpractice premiums. Where do you think that "non-savings" item would end up on a physician's balance sheet if tort reform substantially reduced them or made them obsolete?
As I stated before, where this was tried, there was NO rebate to the patient/customer. The doctors pocketed the savings.
The additional expenditures from physicians ordering increased labs and diagnostics for fear of litigation costs 200 billion per year. Ironically, this is the cost of Obama's health care plan per year. Simple solution- eliminate medical malpractice and use peer review boards and your system is paid for without changing anything other than removing the parasites from the system. Why will it never happen? The Trial Lawyers Association owns the democratic party. Even the dems are beginning to understand that they must separate themselves from the campaign contribution tit of the the lawyers to have any credibility.
Why are dems so in love with lawyers? I think if you ask the average person on the street, they would agree that lawyers in general are lying self interested slime who are parasites on a free society. So who is in control of the government? Lawyers. Who is in charge of "health care reform"? Lawyers. Good luck at a rational solution there. Birds of a feather flock together and one would expect a professionally corrunpt and unethical group of pigs like the Trial Lawyers Association to find a like minded group of thieves in the democratic party.
Let's think about this a little before we make total fools of ourselves. How much would a rational business spend to avoid 1/2% of total costs (that's well documented)? 10% of total costs? If they do they a f*ing stupid and need to be replaced by a single payer system.
You were just chirping away about the $200,000 malpractice premiums. Where do you think that "non-savings" item would end up on a physician's balance sheet if tort reform substantially reduced them or made them obsolete?
As I stated before, where this was tried, there was NO rebate to the patient/customer. The doctors pocketed the savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
Tort reform is such a red herring. Malpractice is 1/2 % of overall medical costs.
Realistically, physician payment is not where any significant savings comes from. (Unless you want to reduce payment by ... what...50% ... 70%? then I suppose there's savings to be had - but then there would be nothing to collect in a law suit) As stated by others - that amount is small. With respect to tort reform, it's the unnecessary care/testing/'defensive' medicine where significant savings could be found. Also, it was another poster that brought up the $200,000, I just confirmed that I had also seen similar data on ratios of malpractice premium to income. In any case, I wouldn't call it 'chirping' exactly.
Realistically, physician payment is not where any significant savings comes from. (Unless you want to reduce payment by ... what...50% ... 70%? then I suppose there's savings to be had - but then there would be nothing to collect in a law suit) As stated by others - that amount is small. With respect to tort reform, it's the unnecessary care/testing/'defensive' medicine where significant savings could be found. Also, it was another poster that brought up the $200,000, I just confirmed that I had also seen similar data on ratios of malpractice premium to income. In any case, I wouldn't call it 'chirping' exactly.
The dollar figure is immaterial.
The point is, tort reform will have no positive impact on the cost of health care in this country, and will benefit only the physicians and hospitals at the expense of the patients and attorneys.
Bad tradeoff, if you are not in the medical profession.
No, that wasnt the point all. The point was that malpractice expense was 1/2 of a percent of the total cost of health care. The re-tort (excuse the pun) is why should we compare malpractice as a percentage of the total cost of health care. What does a doctors malpractice premium have to do with a union dishwashers wage at the local hospital?
About as much as HMOs do when they have staff fully trained to deny as many claims as possible.
Where tort reform has been implemented, the doctors have not passed along any savings, but merely (predictably) pocketed the profits.
Why is it, do you think, that the same doctors who want lower insurance are the ones who want to deny lawyers a right to make a living? Add to that the fact that the most conservative of them want less government intervention, unless, of course, they can profit personally from an increase in same. Speaking of transparency.
Tort reform is nothing but welfare for doctors.
Pocketed "profits" from tort reform? Of course we have, you dolt! If you pay lower premiums, we just don't take that money and throw it away.
The benefit of tort reform is not so much to physicians, it is to the public. Sure, if we save 50% on malpractice, that is nice, but it reduces the real cost of malpractice- overordering imaging and tests.
Denying lawyers a living? That is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Again, does the animal that removes a tick deny the tick a living and should feel guilt? No- the host is delighted to rid itself of a disease carrying parasite, much as we, and the rest of society would like to rid itself of the parasitic burden of lawyers. Read that link again- lawyers are scum parasites that cost us all in the end and money is shunted from we citizens to these pigs, just as pirates in earlier times molested maritime trade.
Most physicians would certainly take a pay cut to get of this verminous scum. There are many, like myself, that want to practice medicine. I would practice for about 1/3 to 1/4 of what I make now, if I did not have those parasites around. Save the host- get rid of the parasites. When was the last time a lawyer cured you of an illness or performed a life improving or life saving surgery? When was the last time a lawyer screwed you? That is what they do- steal from the public and provide nothing in return, except paperwork.
No, that wasnt the point all. The point was that malpractice expense was 1/2 of a percent of the total cost of health care. The re-tort (excuse the pun) is why should we compare malpractice as a percentage of the total cost of health care. What does a doctors malpractice premium have to do with a union dishwashers wage at the local hospital?
Zip, zero, nada
High school statistics
Here is what it means to you- genius. When malpractice premiums rise, physicians take measures to cut those costs. How is that done? Premiums are reduced if doctors drop priveledges for high risk procedures, such that Obstetricians refuse to do deliveries and only do gynecology. As a result, women can travel many miles to see someone who will do deliveries anymore. Keep in mind that this is how our frined John Edwards made his millions. Neurosurgeons (you know those fellows who pull blood clots out of our brains and remove brain tumors?) refuse to do intracranial work and limit thier practice to spine. Therefore, whole communities no longer have access to intracranial neurosurgical care and have to be airlifted to an area providing that service (usually at a loss). General surgeons refuse to do pediatric volvulus, gastroschesis, and even simple pyloric stenosis due to risk. I personally have banned intrathecal morphine pumps (usually used for cancer pain) due to malpractice rates.
So how does it affect a union dishwasher's wage? It reduces thier wage due to the increased cost of healthcare. Unions negotiate package deals, with trade offs of pay changes vs changes in benefits. That union dishwasher is getting screwed by the John Edwards's of America, as they are taking wages out of thier pocket, shunting it to the Trial Lawyers Association, courtesy of increased healthcare costs. They are the biggest thieves in America, and the problem is that for some reason, people turn their angst towards physicians, instead of the scum attorneys who just stole 10% of a working man's paycheck.
We physcians provide a service to improve your health. Lawyers steal from you. You choose.
Here is what it means to you- genius. When malpractice premiums rise, physicians take measures to cut those costs. How is that done? Premiums are reduced if doctors drop priveledges for high risk procedures, such that Obstetricians refuse to do deliveries and only do gynecology. As a result, women can travel many miles to see someone who will do deliveries anymore. Keep in mind that this is how our frined John Edwards made his millions. Neurosurgeons (you know those fellows who pull blood clots out of our brains and remove brain tumors?) refuse to do intracranial work and limit thier practice to spine. Therefore, whole communities no longer have access to intracranial neurosurgical care and have to be airlifted to an area providing that service (usually at a loss). General surgeons refuse to do pediatric volvulus, gastroschesis, and even simple pyloric stenosis due to risk. I personally have banned intrathecal morphine pumps (usually used for cancer pain) due to malpractice rates.
So how does it affect a union dishwasher's wage? It reduces thier wage due to the increased cost of healthcare. Unions negotiate package deals, with trade offs of pay changes vs changes in benefits. That union dishwasher is getting screwed by the John Edwards's of America, as they are taking wages out of thier pocket, shunting it to the Trial Lawyers Association, courtesy of increased healthcare costs. They are the biggest thieves in America, and the problem is that for some reason, people turn their angst towards physicians, instead of the scum attorneys who just stole 10% of a working man's paycheck.
We physcians provide a service to improve your health. Lawyers steal from you. You choose.
That is a meaningless comparison having nothing to do with the impact malpractice has on the cost of my care. Here is the comparison I think is meaningful, A physicians Malpractice Premium as a percentage of His cost of doing business. Bring that number back and we can dicuss honestly how tort reform might help the health care customer.
Thanks
Why is that at all relevant? There are various inputs in every business, and some cost more than others. The fact that the total cost of malpractice--premiums, high-paid insurance defense lawyers, high priced expert witnesses, and even the pittance paid to plaintiffs and their attorneys--is only 0.6% of the nation's total medical bill. Eliminating it completely would only save tenths of a cent on the dollar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
