Is there any merit to the GOP talking point regarding medical malpractice and needless tests?

I heard Pawlenty, Dole, and Pence mention this this morning. Is it something that Dems can agree on?

Malpractice. No. Several states have enacted tort reform and have seen no betterment in the cost or availability of healthcare.

he explains a bit about these issues very well.

among several others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402274.html

responsible, you take care of them at the level you fuck'd up at for life, if he cant work due to malpractice.. the rethugs want to throw the victims to the dogs and protect the criminals.. it is about 2% of total health care

Not in my lifetime. They are the party of lies, propaganda, hate, distortion and misdirection.

However there are other better explanations for the fondness for tests, it's easy and mechanical and requires less of the doctors time and attention.

It is also true that lots of tests is sometimes a good thing.

And as other posters point out, there is no evidence to show that "tort reform" reduces costs. Lawsuits are probably the one effective and legal means of accountability that remains to private citizens, which is why there is such a fondness for "binding arbitration".

There is ample evidence it does not work. No state that has enacted tort reform has seen the rate of growth in malpractice insurance premiums come down one bit. Not only that they have not seen the amount of unnecessary tests and procedures come down. In essence, the people in those states have lost the ability to hold an industry that kills 300,000 people a year with medical errors accountable but it has not helped at all.

Every serious study of the issue shows that the percentage of money paid out in lawsuits has not increased over many decades. There are two reasons the insurance industry lobbies for this. First, of course, is their desire for obscene profits. Second, they need to cover investment losses.

Last data I saw had malpractice in all its forms cost only 2% of healthcare expenses. It's a big number but small ratio. needless tests to AVOID malpractice are harder to quantify obviously as we have to be psychic. Some doctors are doubtless more risk averse or methodical than others regardless of fear of being sued. Without dictating what tests should happen when that will be a tough nut to crack.

It has everything to do with reimbursement styles

Much as they attack the school "unions" as the reason for the problems with education. They don't like the lawyers either. Because they are basically a Democratic voting bloc.

In fact, the malpractice costs, from what I have read, take up about 3% of the total costs of insurance. There is some merit to their argument but it is mostly politically exaggerated.

The mad as hell doctors road tour -- http://www.madashelldoctors.com/
A really good explanation on what's wrong with what we have - http://www.ourailinghealthcare.com/

Bill Moyers special 2 part video - really comprehensive - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/watch.html

they have long since given up any shred of credibility. While in the process of throwing out, doing and saying literally anything at all that can derail health care reform they have given up the right to make any points at all that may be useful.

according to CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.(3) Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent to which physicians practice "defensive medicine" by conducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing medical injuries. However, evidence for those other effects is weak or inconclusive.

if the :puke: are using it as a talking point there is a much better chance of it being bullshit as there is that it's fact.

High awards are limited to a few specialties like obstetrics. The Repukes would rather you couldn't sue at all if the surgeon takes out the wrong kidney or overdoses your chemotherapy.

The problem isn't that they're testing too much, but that they're testing too little.

They test for what they can get paid by insurance. The insurance and health care industry who can get tested and for what, and the minor amount they spend on malpractice claims is not the driving force.

Our doctors generally charge per service. That's how they make their money, unless they work at a rare institution like the Cleveland Clinic, which pays them a set salary. Those "needless tests" generally come from doctors who want to jack up their bottom lines. Either that, or they're too spineless to tell a patient that they don't need the MRI, CAT scan or other unneeded test that the patient insists upon getting. Part of health care reform needs to be teaching all medical students how to explain to their patients their treatment on a level where they can understand it. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Pawlenty, et al. even brought this point up. It interferes with their "free market" mentality.

When the pukes started shouting about tort reform. He explained how low a percentage of costs were. Then he waved his hand over the crowd and said "I trust you people to make the right decision when it comes to lawsuits, not the government."
They shut up. After all, it is the jury that makes the awards.

The whole "tort reform" thing is a smokescreen. Tort law is a state by state issue. The "states rights" crowd gets amnesia when it comes to this particular distraction.

we endure today.

1. They're big money makers.
2. Insurance companies are likely to approve them.

That's it, in a nutshell. Malpractice liability has little or nothing to do with it.

:dem:

-Laelth

and I would say pretty small.

Part of why someone might legitimately sue for malpractice is because they can no longer work or will have medical costs going forward that they can't pay for. In a single payer system, the medical costs would not be an issue. If a public option was structure to cover the unemployed and unemployable, it could do the same.

I am in favor of passing tort reform laws with a sudden death clause. Write it into the law that if malpractice insurance rates do not come down, across the board, by a certain percentage the law is rescinded. That stops them from raising rates to cover their investment losses.

I read the CBO report posted above and was surprised. I have read up on this quite a bit and have found quite a few states that reported no slowing in the rate of malpractice insurance premium increases. Could be the reports I've read are inaccurate but they seemed pretty clear.

The answer to bringing down the cost of unnecessary tests and procedures is to change the way we reimburse. This is one cost that did not come down in response to aggressive tort reform laws. It is profitable for providers to practice in this manner.

in 2 different areas of Texas. One place had great outcomes and lower costs and the other had poor outcomes and high costs. The point was made that malpractice reform had already occurred in Texas and that it apparently no impact on costs.

That article has been posted on DU and President Obama himself appeared to have read it because he specifically cited some of the practices cited in the article for good outcomes. It had a lot more to do with good communication and the group ethos of the medical community than anything else.