states that have passed severe medical malpractice tort restrictions on victims of medical error have rate changes similar to those states that haven't adopted these harsh measures.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158494.php
jakeb
It does help keep costs down. There are many other factor in medical pricing and each state is different, So you can't really compare state to state costs on that one single issue. Many other factors are involved. Also, truth is that it's a small part of medical costs. And don't you think that the victims should get more money than the Lawyers, too often the Lawyer profits more.
captain_trps
Because hospitals and doctors have found better safeguards to protect themselves from malpractice says nothing about unnecessary procedures and tests done in order to insulate themselves from being sued. All this raises the cost of medicine.
Rick
Try this: You're a doctor, and you can order a test for a patient who might have some condition. If you don't give the test, and the patient later turns out to have this condition, then you are guilty of malpractice, and you could get sued for a million dollars.
Okay, so now they change the law so that you can only get sued for $ 50,000. Then another patient comes in with the same symptoms. If you don't give the test, you could still get sued for $ 50,000.
Now, people want to know why the lower rate hasn't persuaded you not to give the test. You tell me. Take your time.
We have very high expectations of our care system, and a little malpractice suit is still malpractice. But it's good that you should mention this, because under Obamacare this same test is going to be declared "unnecessary," and nobody will get it: instant savings. Unless, of course, you count the small percentage of lives that will be lost due to undetected/untreated conditions. But hey, dead people don't vote -- and when they do, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. So what the heck! It's a win-win!
Mr. Wolf
It has some effect. The Congressional Budget Office(December 2008) estimated that imposing limits on torts for medical malpractice cases would lower malpractice premiums nationwide by about 6 percent, on average from the levels likely to occur under current law. (The savings in each state would depend in part on the restrictions already in effect.) Savings of that magnitude would have only a modest impact on total health care expenditures, however reducing total health care spending by less than 0.2 percent.
Orignal From: Why does medical malpractice reform has no effect on medical costs by itself?
Post a Comment