During a health care summit hosted by President Barack Obama on Thursday, Republicans in attendance were quick to propose their solution to all of the problems with the current system — tort reform.
Their argument went something like this: The medical liability system is broken, and juries give out massive awards in frivolous cases, causing insurance rates to skyrocket and scaring doctors into practicing wasteful defensive medicine.
Throughout the past decade, Republicans have consistently claimed that the medical liability system is the biggest factor behind excessive health care costs.
What is their solution? To limit the damages that plaintiffs can recover in malpractice lawsuits.
But there is one tiny problem with their argument: It’s wrong.
“All told, jury awards, settlements and administrative costs — which by definition, are similar to the combined cost of insurance — add up to less than $10 billion a year,” David Leonhardt reported in a Sept. 22 New York Times article.
Leonhardt also said that figure is less than one-half of a percent of what the U.S. spends on health care every year.
The malpractice liability system isn’t broken at all. A study conducted by non-profit group Public Citizen found that the size of malpractice damage awards has remained steady for nearly 20 years. After factoring in inflation, the average payment has steadily decreased since 1991.
Also, the study revealed that the number of payments made of more than $1 million — the ones that garner all the media attention — have never exceeded one-half of one percent of the annual total number of payments.
The idea that runaway juries award millions of dollars in frivolous cases is an unsubstantiated myth.
Tort reform advocates argue that the true costs of the malpractice system aren’t really seen in damage awards, but in the wasteful defensive medicine they motivate.
But Leonhardt reported that even the highest estimates set the cost of defensive medicine at around $60 billion a year — just 3 percent of medical spending.
Defensive medicine is clearly not the main factor in skyrocketing health care costs.
According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, the proposed national tort reform measure would save $54 billion over 10 years.
That amount may sound like a lot of money, but the U.S. spends around $2.5 trillion each year on health care.
Also, an economic cost is incurred when malpractice causes the injury or death of a person and courts must decide how to allocate that cost. Malpractice insurance exists to assume that risk.
Capping liability acts like a price ceiling and socializes the cost of malpractice above the cap. That’s right — liability caps are socialism.
Not only are they socialist, but they also transfer the cost of malpractice away from insurers, who exist solely to assume the cost, to malpractice victims and their families.
Try to imagine what that feels like for the victims; imagine a parent, sibling or child going into the hospital for a procedure. Imagine them dying because of a negligent doctor, and then imagine that, in addition, you and your family are burdened with the financial cost.
Now, if that family had a lot of money, they might be able to recover something, even though the deck is stacked against them.
But if it’s a retired parent or an unemployed sibling or child, their ability to recover would be limited. They wouldn’t even be able to hire an attorney, as no money would be made off of the case for years.
Consider these facts: A study conducted by the Institute of Medicine concluded that as many as 98,000 people die every year as a result of preventable medical errors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that around 100,000 more die annually due to hospital-acquired infections.
Those are just the deaths. Who knows how many more people are hurt each year?
Tort reform supporters want to make those people and their families bear the costs of malpractice.
The real goal of tort reform isn’t to save money or improve health care, but to absolve insurance companies of financial risk at the expense of malpractice victims.
Not only is that evil, but it would also remove incentives to prevent doctors from committing malpractice, which would inevitably result in more malpractice.
We don’t have a malpractice liability problem in this country; we have a malpractice problem. The government certainly shouldn’t be doing anything to exacerbate it.
David Brooks is a communication senior and may be contacted at [email protected]
I’m a physician who is hostile to the present medical liability system, along with nearly every MD in the country. I agree that caps are not ideal. The author frames the issue purely in economic terms. I also think the issue should be viewed through a fairness lens. There is no meaningful barrier to suing physicians. This tortures us and leads to defensive medicine, which patients don’t need. It should not be so easy and routine to turn innocent physicians into defendants. In addition, most patients who deserve legal redress are never captured by the system. See http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality for some balance.
So, the fact that the numbers don’t add up to a significant enough number for YOU doesn’t warrant tort reform? Tell that to the countless physicians who suffer, and whose expertise and passion are destroyed by frivolous lawsuits.
I’ll be sure to tell them that right after you explain to malpractice victims that they won’t be compensated for their loss because it would cost the doctors who committed malpractice against them a little more in insurance premiums.
So a savings of barely a fraction of costs is worth taking away access to the courts?
Didn’t we already pass medmal caps in Texas? Don’t we have the most uninsured in the country? Have medmal insurance rates gone up? How can you really say that this is a legitimate solution?