Tort reform molehill: Malpractice lawsuits a "microscopic" part of health care costs

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama said he was willing to work with Republicans to get tort reform done. So, what does this really mean?

It means that we'll still have increasing health care costs.

"Despite empirical evidence pointing to the contrary, public officials continue to point to “tort reform” as a method of reducing health care costs. The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing about the alleged correlation between “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits and sky rocketing health care costs. Even President Obama remarked that he would be open to reforming medical malpractice laws in his State of the Union address.

What these public officials fail to consider is that numerous studies have shown that medical malpractice costs are a microscopic portion, 2.4 percent to be exact, of total health care costs in the United States.

Another important aspect of the debate that doesn’t get discussed enough is the method in which these public officials want to go about “reforming” our medical malpractice legal system – punishing helpless victims. The most recent “tort reform” proposal would place an arbitrary $250,000 cap on non-economic damages. What are non-economic damages? That is the amount of compensation a victim receives for the significant downgrade in quality life stemming from the injury.

Tort reform advocates rightly point out that it’s virtually impossible to perfectly calculate pain and suffering damages. But that is counterintuitive. If we follow that logic, placing an arbitrary $250,000 cap makes absolutely no sense considering you’re placing a calculated number on a supposedly incalculable issue."

http://virginiabeach.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/tort-reform-is-wrong-way-to-try-and-reduce-health-care-costs.aspx?googleid=288064

2.4%.

That 2.4 percent is worth only receiving 250,000 dollars max when a loved one dies.

You can never use your arms and/or legs again because of a doctor's mistake, but you're only getting 250,000 dollars.

Your newborn baby was dropped on her head by a doctor only hours after she was born and you will need to care for her for the rest of your life (And this has actually happened to a family I know), but you're only getting 250,000 dollars for it.

(The article also mentions several solutions, including allowing drug importation from Canada and creating a special focus on preventative medicine. But that would all be SOCIALISM, right?)

I've had tests I don't want and the doctor says I almost certainly don't have but he has to do the test just in case (just want anti-biotics for what we both know I DO have). And I've had to wait for doctors to do the exact same exam the nurse just did after the nurse had already taken care of me.

I don't know if they do these things to make more money, or for protection in court or something else. It does seem reasonable that at least some of it is for court and that it does increase the cost.

Dropping a baby on it's head seems like they should have to pay big. But failing to test for something I have no symptoms for and 1 in 1000 people may have doesn't seem like it should result in a big cost especially if I decline the tests. So there's probably a lot of room for tort reform without lowering damages for the real negligence.