Tort Reform Reduces Federal Deficit, Congressional Analysts Say

Originally posted by mental modulator

But at least you still have one leg left

until they take to right one

Here's your check Stumpo - sign out over at that window

Exactly.
"Quit your complaining. At least you didn't get staph infection. NEXT!!!"

reply to post by really

People have gone in for surgical amputation of one leg only to have the other leg removed. There are a billion stories like this...

Not a billion just a few that get repeated a billion times!

Obviously when a wrong is done it needs to be repaired legally. How much for a limb? $100,000 or $100,000,000 put a limit on it. And preferably get the lawyers out of the settlement because they are the ones that get 9/10 of the money.

People tend to look at medical settlements as winning the lottery when in reality the lawyers get most of the money and you get very little and it doesn't happen very often anyway. The legal aspect is just a big waist. Why not pay about 1/3 of what you now pay in medical bills and forget about suing you doctor or pharmaceutical company? Maybe Obama can reimburse you for the medical malpractice part, he seems to be able come up with endless money! (Not serious)

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by really

 

People have gone in for surgical amputation of one leg only to have the other leg removed. There are a billion stories like this...

Not a billion just a few that get repeated a billion times!

Obviously when a wrong is done it needs to be repaired legally. How much for a limb? $100,000 or $100,000,000 put a limit on it. And preferably get the lawyers out of the settlement because they are the ones that get 9/10 of the money.

People tend to look at medical settlements as winning the lottery when in reality the lawyers get most of the money and you get very little and it doesn't happen very often anyway. The legal aspect is just a big waist. Why not pay about 1/3 of what you now pay in medical bills and forget about suing you doctor or pharmaceutical company? Maybe Obama can reimburse you for the medical malpractice part, he seems to be able come up with endless money! (Not serious)

Like I said if you do the math it is like a $20 savings per person each year per the report.

2009 cost estimates are 2.5 Trillion

which is more than $7,500 per person at the 330,000,000 population rate

knock off 45 million or so uninsured and we have $10,000 per person

Point is a $20 dollar savings seems a drop in the bucket.

How much is an arm for you?

cause I make money playing music - take my arm and my life is completely changed around...

How much is a pseudo vegetable that might live a couple decades?

Originally posted by plumranch

Not a billion just a few that get repeated a billion times!

Actually, the numbers from med mal deaths alone are much higher than "a few times" a year.

Apparently there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer reports The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.

www.senaiorfitness.com...

In 2000, a presidential task force labelled medical errors a "national problem of epidemic proportions." Members estimated that the "cost associated with these errors in lost income, disability, and health care costs is as much as $29 billion annually." That same year the Institute of Medicine released an historic report, "To err is human: building a safer health system." The report's authors concluded that 44,000 to 98,000 people die each year as a result of errors during hospitalization. They noted that "even when using the lower estimate, deaths due to medical errors exceed the number attributable to the 8th-leading cause of death." The addition of non-hospital errors may drive the numbers of errors and deaths much higher. As the authors note, the hospital data "offer only a very modest estimate of the magnitude of the problem since hospital patients represent only a small proportion of the total population at risk, and direct hospital costs are only a fraction of total costs."

Medical errors are the not only way that consumers are harmed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2 million people annually acquire infections while hospitalized and 90,000 people die from those infections. More than 70 percent of hospital-acquired infections have become resistant to at least one of the drugs commonly used to treat them, largely due to the overprescribing of antibiotics by physicians. Staph, the leading cause of hospital infections, is now resistant to 95 percent of first-choice antibiotics and 30 percent of second-choice antibiotics. Poor staff hygiene is considered the leading source for infections acquired during hospitalizations. But efforts to get medical workers to improve safety through things as simple as better and more frequent hand washing have met with little success.

www.iatrogenic.org...

It's called Iatrogenic illness.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by really]

Originally posted by mental modulator
Like I said if you do the math it is like a $20 savings per person each year per the report.

Does that $20 a year take into account all the unnecessary and needless procedures and tests that won't be done anymore when doctors aren't constantly worried about covering their tails? Somehow I don't think it does and that's a cost that we pay that needs to be taken into account before just dismissing tort reform as pointless monetarily.

reply to post by really

TexMedical errors are the not only way that consumers are harmed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2 million people annually acquire infections while hospitalizedt

So we shouldn't have tort reform because germs become resistant to common antibiotics?

reply to post by plumranch


Tort reform is one thing, getting rid of med mal suits is another. Also, if you read both the articles, they spoke of far more than germs. They spoke of misdiagnosis and improper treatment of patients as the third highest cause of death in the US. So, if you're advocating doing away with med mal to save a few bucks, I don't agree. If you're talking about finding a way to reform med mal suits to cut down on the frivolous ones then I'm with you.
Doctors are people and do a lot of heinous things. In NYC around 6-7 years ago, there was a doctor performing a C-Section who carved his initials in the patient. It was all over the news. It happened to be my friend's step sister.

reply to post by plumranch

Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

Dr. Starfield offers several caveats in the interpretations of these numbers:

First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.

Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include the many negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.

Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report. If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer.

Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebro-vascular disease).

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:

116 million extra physician visits
77 million extra prescriptions
17 million emergency department visits
8 million hospitalizations
3 million long-term admissions
199,000 additional deaths
$77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but it seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among these patients die each year as a result of medical errors.

www.yourmedicaldetective.com...

reply to post by really


You list all of these horrible things that can happen to you if you have a doctor or health care facility work on you.

Conclusions that can be drawn:

-stay away from doctors.
-don't go to hospitals, the risks are far too high.
-we need less health care not more.
-alternatives to health care are almost always better than going to the doctor.
-universal health care will exacerbate medical malpractice because it will put more pressure on an already stressed system.

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by really

 

You list all of these horrible things that can happen to you if you have a doctor or health care facility work on you.

Conclusions that can be drawn:

-stay away from doctors.
-don't go to hospitals, the risks are far too high.
-we need less health care not more.
-alternatives to health care are almost always better than going to the doctor.
-universal health care will exacerbate medical malpractice because it will put more pressure on an already stressed system.

I list the facts and I don't see how you correlate those facts to every one of the items on your list. Plus, you're not sticking to the point of your thread. I wonder if you read the articles that I posted. Those are facts. As I've already mentioned, if you're talking about med mal reform for frivolous cases, I'm in with you. If you're talking talking about getting rid of med mal cases then I'm not.
If you want to discuss or debate fine. But why post a thread if you're just going to dismiss.
These doctors have med mal insurance, already.

reply to post by really

if you're talking about med mal reform for frivolous cases, I'm in with you. If you're talking talking about getting rid of med mal cases then I'm not.

Sorry for my rant about Hu medicine.

My solution is pretty simple.

-Put monetary limits on human life and limb.
-penalize persons and lawyers for frivolous lawsuits and make them pay all expenses involved.

What is your solution?

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
There is a reason the majority of top elected politicians are lawyers, or were before their move into politics.

It ain't gonna happen.

The lawyers run the country.

They aren't going to ever pass legislation that would harm business for lawyers and law firms.

I am not as convinced. While I agree that serious tort reform on the federal level is unlikely, it is possible. I had a trial lawyer friend of mine who is very politically active tell me that this is the quid pro quo, at least at one point. The Democrats would get the healthcare bill they want, and the republicans would get their tort reform to get the necessary votes and provide political cover. Everyone can go home and brag to their constituents what they did. A nice compromise. Like I said, I don't know if this is still even the plan, but it is possible.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mental modulator
Like I said if you do the math it is like a $20 savings per person each year per the report.

Does that $20 a year take into account all the unnecessary and needless procedures and tests that won't be done anymore when doctors aren't constantly worried about covering their tails? Somehow I don't think it does and that's a cost that we pay that needs to be taken into account before just dismissing tort reform as pointless monetarily.

Ya, if is a nominal amount I would be less apt to possibly reduce civil liberties and increase corporate influence. As it is, the Insurance companies fight tooth and nail
to deny care, tests and medicine to many suffering catastrophic disease and conditions.
Tort has been a part of our society since its inception, I disagree strongly with raking away individual legal recourse as doing so will invite the dirtiest of cost cutting methods. Why would an HMO fund a 1.5 dollar cancer tab when it can pony up a $500,000 negligent death cap after providing sub par care. Sucker dies and Blue cross save a couple hundred G's,

tax havens in in the Caribbean are fun, but this idea could turn into Disney land...

Like I said there is another $9,980.00 to be worried about,

it is like talking about saving two pennies out of ten bucks -

As far as your last point - ya money counts when you are weighing an issue that could have unforeseen implications.

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by really

 

if you're talking about med mal reform for frivolous cases, I'm in with you. If you're talking talking about getting rid of med mal cases then I'm not.

Sorry for my rant about Hu medicine.

My solution is pretty simple.

-Put monetary limits on human life and limb.
-penalize persons and lawyers for frivolous lawsuits and make them pay all expenses involved.

What is your solution?

You would seriously propose putting a flat price on peoples lives?

I don't know man, that is pretty tyrannical to save some $20 bucks per policy.
I agree about prosecuting frivolous suits, but I could only imagine people getting tagged backwards by corporate/government influence over the matter. BTW, what makes you think such a savings would be directed at consumers? Thinking wishfully,
one could hope to see 50% of the saving passed on to policy holders, then we are talking less than a dollar a month in saving per policy.

People are out in the streets about taxes etc now... What until someone proposes the first estimate at a human life , I could see the commercials now, that person would be ejected half way to the moon following the media blitz. Such a thing would get me into the streets, madder than a hornet for certain.

I sort of can't believe that so many of you conservative folks do not view tort as an individual liberty issue, seems clear cut to me that that is the case...

[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by mental modulator
Ya, if is a nominal amount I would be less apt to possibly reduce civil liberties and increase corporate influence. As it is, the Insurance companies fight tooth and nail to deny care, tests and medicine to many suffering catastrophic disease and conditions.

I do believe you completely missed what I was asking. It's easy to dismiss any savings as not being worth messing with if it looks like a tiny amount. No different than leaving your pennies at the gas station, after all what are a few pennies compared to the $30 you just paid for gas.

My point was that a $20 decrease doesn't seem like much, but that's $240 knocked off in a year and there will likely also be decreased out of pocket costs once doctors aren't doing completely unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover their butts. They don't do it for the patient, they do it to save their own hides if that patient tries to sue them.

Tort has been a part of our society since its inception, I disagree strongly with raking away individual legal recourse as doing so will invite the dirtiest of cost cutting methods.

And I agree with you. I wouldn't advocate taking away someone's legal recourse. However, I do support reworking the system so that frivolous lawsuits don't happen while still letting the people who truly deserve legal recourse get it. According to WrongDiagnosis.com, around 25% of doctors get sued each year. That number is far too high and tell me doctors need less patients each so they can focus on each one better, but that's beside the point. That other 75% who doesn't get sued this year are still paying out the wazoo for malpractice insurance and passing those costs on to their patients. That other 75% is still ordering multiple unnecessary tests and procedures to cover themselves 'just in case' and passing those costs on to the patient.

The 25% who are getting sued may have screwed up royally, or it may be a frivolous lawsuit that the judge should dismiss and that should be left up to courts. But if that 25% weren't facing being hit with a verdict that says they owe a few million in punitive damages that other 75% wouldn't be ordering all those unnecessary tests and procedures and they wouldn't have their premiums hit the roof when their malpractice insurance provider increases their premiums to cover the millions Dr. Bob just got sued for. And we all know who really pays those increases. The patients do.

You should look at both sides of the issue before deciding you're dead set against something.

As far as your last point - ya money counts when you are weighing an issue that could have unforeseen implications.

Yes money does count as callous as it seems. As long as they actually think through the intended and unintended consequences, tort reform would be a good thing. Could they royally screw it up and unintentionally prevent people from being compensated adequately for medical malpractice? Yep, sure could. Does that mean that we should just leave it alone and not worry about it? Nope, sure doesn't.

reply to post by mental modulator

People are out in the streets about taxes etc now... What until someone proposes the first estimate at a human life , I could see the commercials now, that person would be ejected half way to the moon following the media blitz.

FYO, all but 15 states ALREADY HAVE limits on malpractice rewards. When Texas adopted limits, doctors fled to Texas (to avoid excessive malpractice insurance premiums elsewhere)!

I simply propose that Congress apply lower limits across the board. If the states want to be more restrictive they can.

Again, what do you propose instead of lower liability limits?

reply to post by Jenna

But if that 25% weren't facing being hit with a verdict that says they owe a few million in punitive damages that other 75% wouldn't be ordering all those unnecessary tests and procedures and they wouldn't have their premiums hit the roof when their malpractice insurance provider increases their premiums to cover the millions Dr. Bob just got sued for. And we all know who really pays those increases. The patients do.

THAT is the problem. Defensive medicine. Your (doctor's) main incentive for ordering up a whole battery of tests and procedures is fear. Fear that if you don't do the whole 9 yards you will miss that 1% that may turn into a lawsuit and you get to talk to the lawyer.

How many times do you go to the doctor with a stomach ache and end up having a whole battery of tests, the Xrays and thing stuck up your behind when all it took to solve the problem was a $10 bottle of antibiotics or better yet a few probiotics and a change in diet? and

Originally posted by plumranch
How many times do you go to the doctor with a stomach ache and end up having a whole battery of tests, the Xrays and thing stuck up your behind when all it took to solve the problem was a $10 bottle of antibiotics or better yet a few probiotics and a change in diet?

and

Even better is when they do an X-ray, ultrasound, two blood draws with who knows how many tests ran on them, and I can't even remember what else before coming to tell me they didn't know what was wrong. (It was my diet, but it took me awhile to figure it out on my own.) They likely could have done half of that and came to the same conclusion, but in an effort to save their hides had I tried to sue they ran every test they could think of. Fortunately for me I was under 18 at the time and couldn't be charged for it, unfortunately for my mom she could. That was definitely not a pretty bill even with insurance.

Originally posted by Jenna

I do believe you completely missed what I was asking. It's easy to dismiss any savings as not being worth messing with if it looks like a tiny amount. No different than leaving your pennies at the gas station, after all what are a few pennies compared to the $30 you just paid for gas.

My point was that a $20 decrease doesn't seem like much, but that's $240 knocked off in a year and there will likely also be decreased out of pocket costs once doctors aren't doing completely unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover their butts. They don't do it for the patient, they do it to save their own hides if that patient tries to sue them.


And I agree with you. I wouldn't advocate taking away someone's legal recourse. However, I do support reworking the system so that frivolous lawsuits don't happen while still letting the people who truly deserve legal recourse get it. According to WrongDiagnosis.com, around 25% of doctors get sued each year. That number is far too high and tell me doctors need less patients each so they can focus on each one better, but that's beside the point. That other 75% who doesn't get sued this year are still paying out the wazoo for malpractice insurance and passing those costs on to their patients. That other 75% is still ordering multiple unnecessary tests and procedures to cover themselves 'just in case' and passing those costs on to the patient.

The 25% who are getting sued may have screwed up royally, or it may be a frivolous lawsuit that the judge should dismiss and that should be left up to courts. But if that 25% weren't facing being hit with a verdict that says they owe a few million in punitive damages that other 75% wouldn't be ordering all those unnecessary tests and procedures and they wouldn't have their premiums hit the roof when their malpractice insurance provider increases their premiums to cover the millions Dr. Bob just got sued for. And we all know who really pays those increases. The patients do.

You should look at both sides of the issue before deciding you're dead set against something.

Yes money does count as callous as it seems. As long as they actually think through the intended and unintended consequences, tort reform would be a good thing. Could they royally screw it up and unintentionally prevent people from being compensated adequately for medical malpractice? Yep, sure could. Does that mean that we should just leave it alone and not worry about it? Nope, sure doesn't.

Well I mean as Plum ranch mentioned above, he/she wants to a fix an actual price on life and limb, I think you are not be realistic in regards to how far business will milk this. The end goal for HC is to lobby the for the lowest price they can "negotiate" on an life, an arm, eye, mobility, continence, hearing and awareness... BE sure they will lobby extree hard to make it as difficult as possible for YOU or me to qualify for legal action,
provided we ever need it (hope not).

Tell me Jenna, do you think an HMO would rather pay for a million dollar cancer bill, or
pay off a $500,000 Negligent death cap? Do you honestly reckon that if there is hundreds of thousands to save it will not be saved if it is legal?

For example; my father cancer bill was 2.3 million, in his case they could have decided it was MUCH more profitable to withhold the best treatment in place of some arbitrary cap. You see after a tremendous lobby effort they clamp window of TORT qualification to a slit. If you think the combination of government and lobbyists are going to produce an equitable system for consumers I think you only need to look at the fine mess we are in. The same system of lobbying got us the fine derivative market that put our economy in the turd bucket.

I just think you guys are not being realistic on how this messed up system works when it gets to brass tacks. BIG HEALTH WILL leverage in a way that will take away rights of the individual, count on it. Our politicians will then make certain that there is the lowest price negotiable on a life/limb so they can get their next campaign funded heftily.

On another note, I don't understand why conservatives have such a boner for this thing in the first place? The current battle cry is give us back our individual liberty, yet
here is a case of inviting a result that strips an individual of liberty, thru government interference to boot. Currently the system is how it has been as established since before the constitution was penned as the constitution was penned. The courts are the great equalizer, where a little man can take on the system, thru precedence tort could prove to be an assault on this, truly.

next

It is $20 a year, $1.66 a month

54 billion divided by 10 divided by 290,000,000 divided by 12 -

I would be like saving $0.20 on $100.00 -

then it would be logical to assume that maybe 50% of the Tort reform savings might be passed on to the consumer -

That would be about $.68 a month in savings a month if spread evenly to every insured person.

So to save less than a dollar a month I think it is not wise


Frankly I don't think it would work in the common sense way you desire Jenna - it will be abused and FUBAR'ed. I was open minded on the whole idea until I read up on TORT law and common law

Originally posted by mental modulator
Well I mean as Plum ranch mentioned above, he/she wants to a fix an actual price on life and limb, I think you are not be realistic in regards to how far business will milk this. The end goal for HC is to lobby the for the lowest price they can "negotiate" on an life, an arm, eye, mobility, continence, hearing and awareness... BE sure they will lobby extree hard to make it as difficult as possible for YOU or me to qualify for legal action,
provided we ever need it (hope not).

This has already been done by the insurance companies. Every job I've had has offered me accidental death and dismemberment policies when I'm signing up for insurance. I've seen policies that would pay up to $750k and policies that paid as little as $250k and depending on what you lose there's a percentage that you'll get from the $250k or $750k. So I really don't understand the difference.

Tell me Jenna, do you think an HMO would rather pay for a million dollar cancer bill, or pay off a $500,000 Negligent death cap? Do you honestly reckon that if there is hundreds of thousands to save it will not be saved if it is legal?

Obviously they'd rather pay less. What I think you're failing to consider though is putting a cap on payouts doesn't mean that doctors will be free to just not treat people or that insurance companies will be free to just not cover treatments they think are too expensive. Every health care bill I've read (working on my 5th one right now) includes provisions for making sure insurance companies cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions and preventing them from dropping policies if someone gets sick or is diagnosed with an illness that will be expensive to treat. Incorporating tort reform in there won't take those provisions away.

For example; my father cancer bill was 2.3 million, in his case they could have decided it was MUCH more profitable to withhold the best treatment in place of some arbitrary cap.

They could have done that anyway. There isn't much right now preventing an insurance company from denying a claim or just outright dropping a policy based on some technicality that only they are aware of.

I just think you guys are not being realistic on how this messed up system works when it gets to brass tacks. BIG HEALTH WILL leverage in a way that will take away rights of the individual, count on it. Our politicians will then make certain that there is the lowest price negotiable on a life/limb so they can get their next campaign funded heftily.

They will try, I'm sure. Which is why I said they (Congress) need to make sure they do it right the first time and think everything all the way through.

On another note, I don't understand why conservatives have such a boner for this thing in the first place?

I'm neither a conservative nor do I have a boner for this thing. Aside from the physical impossibility of such an event, when someone can sue a doctor for something that didn't cause death or dismemberment and get millions in punitive damages there's a problem. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant. That's all they are. They're not compensation for damages, they're not a monetary replacement for what was lost be it time, wages, or limbs. They are punishment plain and simple.

The courts are the great equalizer, where a little man can take on the system, thru precedence tort could prove to be an assault on this, truly.

What precedence?

Frankly I don't think it would work in the common sense way you desire Jenna - it will be abused and FUBAR'ed. I was open minded on the whole idea until I read up on TORT law and common law

Which, again, is why I said they need to think it all the way through both the intended as well as the unintended consequences. If it's done correctly it will help and not hurt the situation. What exactly have you read on tort law that's made you against the idea of tort reform? I have a degree as a paralegal and nothing I have seen regarding tort law has led me to believe tort reform would be a bad thing.