Lawsuits alone can't account for surging malpractice insurance costs

Lawsuits alone can't account for surging malpractice insurance costs

By Joseph B. Treaster and Joel Brinkley
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

February 23, 2005

Speaking before hundreds of doctors and medical workers in a St. Louis suburb last month, President Bush called attention to a neurosurgeon on stage with him in the small auditorium. The doctor, the president said, was paying $265,000 a year in premiums for insurance against malpractice claims.

Such high prices "don't start in an examining room or an operating room," the president declared. "They start in a courtroom."

Indeed, at many recent appearances, Bush has complained about the "skyrocketing" costs of "junk lawsuits" against doctors and hospitals.

But for all the worry over higher medical expenses, legal costs do not seem to be at the root of the recent increase in malpractice insurance premiums. Government and industry data show only a modest rise in malpractice claims over the last decade. And last year, the trend in payments for malpractice claims against doctors and other medical professionals turned sharply downward, falling 8.9 percent, to a nationwide total of $4.6 billion, according to data compiled by the Health and Human Services Department.

(snip)

Lawsuits against doctors are just one of several factors that have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance, insurance experts say. Lately, the more important factors appear to be the declining investment earnings of insurance companies and the changing nature of competition in the industry.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050223/news_1n23malprac.html

States that have enacted tort reform have not seen a decline in malpractice insurance rates.

States that have shown a decrease in punitive pay outs have not seen a decline in malpractice insurance rates.

Google search malpractice + insurance and you'll find a number of committee findings. Those committees commissioned by state governments invariably tie insurance rates to stock market fluctuations. Those commissioned by the medical/insurance industry invariably tie rates to law suit damages. Who'da thought?

As governor of Texas Bush oversaw the execution of more people than the rest of the industrialized world combined. Every defendant was judged guilty by a jury of 12 who also selected the death penalty. If a jury of 12 is wise enough to take a life, why are they not wise enough to set punitive monetary damages for doctors and corporations?

Profound statement, flamin lib, and spot on.


I think I'll pass it along to some flamin con acquaintances of mine! :evilgrin:

I've found it very effective to simply ask questions is a truly inquisitive way. Ask their opinion and advice.

Is there anyone who you think should be prevented from owning a gun?

Well, maybe a minor or somebody guilty of a violent crime.

Okay we agree that there are people who shouldn't have guns. What do you think in the best way to keep those people from getting guns?

Instant background check!

Hmmm, private sales of guns from one owner to another are exempt from background checks aren't they?

Uh, well yeah, but . . .

And so it goes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so they will squeeze as much as they can in premiums from their customers, all the while accusing the trial lawyers for the high cost of insurance.

A better solution is to socialize medicine in this country, as in Cuba. Free health care for all, and no insurance companies to bleed the people.

Bushitler is ruining this country with corporate greed.

There are two kinds of insurance companies: Stock companies and Mutual companies.

As the name implies, stock companies are owned by stock holders who expect a return on investment regardless of claims, stock market fluxes or the second coming of Christ.

Mutual companies are owned by the policy holders. Any amount of money earned above expenses, anticipated reserves and claims is returned to the policy holders in the form of a year end dividend.

Mutual companies are usually more expensive up front but the dividend will usually more than make up for it.

What doctors need to do is self insure. Form their own mutual company not beholden to stock holders but to them alone. There are a lot of professional organizations that could become the backbone of such a company.

investment companies.

In Cuba if the wrong leg gets amputated? My guess is that you just get an apology, and a wheel board.

Federalizing health care doesn't stop malpractice, it just makes it impossible to collect damages.

Or any of the other countries that are considered more "developed" than Cuba. Why did you pick Cuba?

pick Cuba, IndianaGreen did. I was responding to his suggestion that Cuba had a superior system to ours, just because it is free of charge. I thought I would illustrate how nonsensical that notion is.

In Sweden, medical malpractice insurance is no-fault. If a mistake is made, you are paid out according to a predetermined schedule. So a soccer player who loses a leg gets the same amount of compensation as a desk jockey in the State department..

The UK has a two tiered medical system. Wealthy people who can afford private insurance get quality health care, while those on public insurance have to rely on dirty crowded public hospitals. It is very similar to what we have here in the United States, where people who don't have insurance have to go to the county hospital.

So why don't they have a problem with malpractice insurance in the UK? Because if you file a frivolous lawsuit there and lose, you have to pay all court costs and attorneys fees. Loser pays.

But I guarantee you that Federal doctors will perform with far fewer mishaps. They have much stricter guidlines. The government does a far better job of just about everything than the private sector. I know you have been fed the lie that all government run agencies are inept but it is a lie. Have you ever dealt with the government. There are a million forms and checks that must be filled out and followed and are checked up on in a timely manner. Private business is nowhere near as thourough. We are the only westernized country that does not have government run health care and yet we are the one deepest in debt. In fact several including Canada have been running surplusses for the last five years. America is no longer even thinking about surplus. all we are thinking about is cutting our deficit (not debt) a bit. But even if they do manage to cut the deficit in half it will still be unmanagable. we must cut our debt or we will become insolvent. It is basic economics. The quickest wau tyo begin to cut our debt is by lowering health care costs and that is by nationalizing it. I guess we know better than just about every country on earth........ We (as a country) be almost as smart as our leader. I be soooo proud......

<<The government does a far better job of just about everything than the private sector.>>

When something has to be mailed overnight do you use Fed-Ex, or the Post office? When you travel do you fly or use Amtrak? Would you rather have Blue Cross or Medicaid?

of corporations. These days they cannot be held accountable for much.

doing likewise.

It isn't the malpractice cases, which have held steady or declined over the past several years; it's the INSURANCE COMPANIES. But bush doesn't want you to know that coz bush wants to reward his base. You know, big corporations. The Haves and Have-Mores.

And fuck the little people.

the only insurer writing malpractice in my state was a mutual, made up of physicians in who practiced in that state only.

Rates were going up 20% a year, and the company was elimianted doctors and refusing to underwrite any new physicians. This meant that for two years no physician could go into practice in the state unless they were with another physician who already had coverage.

After tort reform -- which probably did more to restrict the filing of lawsuits than damages in this case -- there are now four insurers writing polcies, and rates haven't moved in two years.

<http://slate.msn.com/id/2113103/>

excerpt...

"...Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand have used no-fault malpractice systems for 20 to 30 years, with admittedly mixed results. Yet several academics, most notably Harvard's David Studdert and Troyen Brennan, have studied these countries' systems and concluded that a U.S. system modeled on that of Sweden could more consistently compensate victims of avoidable mishaps and more effectively reduce error and incompetence—all for the same cost. No-fault would also make doctors and patients allies rather than adversaries when something goes awry."