Study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas

[mercury14]

So much for Republican claims that we needed tort reform instead of the ACA...

New study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas

Charles Silver

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.

Tort reform is a controversial topic likely to be resurrected by Republicans and doctors' groups who hoped to make it part of the 2010 federal health care law.

The researchers' findings come after a report last fall in which the Ralph Nader-founded consumer group Public Citizen said it found Medicare spending in Texas rose much faster than the national average after tort reform. Critics of that study said that tort reform leaders never promised health care spending would decline and noted that caps on damage awards brought steep drops in malpractice insurance rates for doctors and large increases in new doctors coming to Texas.

Another study yet to be published on physician supply and tort reform, also by Silver's group, agrees that malpractice suits and payouts sharply dropped after tort reform. But that study strongly disputes claims of a mass exodus of Texas doctors before tort reform and huge increases afterward.

On the question of health care costs, Silver's group focused on the federal government's Medicare program, which makes up 20 percent of the $2.5 trillion spent on U.S. health care.

That group — consisting of two Republicans, a Democrat and a foreign national, according to the researchers — analyzed data at the county level in Texas, said Tom Baker, author of a 2005 book, "The Medical Malpractice Myth," and a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania.

"This is a very highly regarded study, and this team is highly regarded," Baker said. The study was paid for by the researchers' universities, Silver said, and the paper was published this month in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

"Their results didn't surprise me at all," Baker said.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/

 

[richard_daily]

It would be interesting to see a study about the effects of tort reform in regards to how it affected the amount of malpractice occurring.

 

[mercury14]

It would be interesting to see a study about the effects of tort reform in regards to how it affected the amount of malpractice occurring.

Doubt it would be too significant.

 

[Ishmael]

You might want to read through this article. Tort reform is not the panacea some profess it to be, but it is a piece of the puzzle.

"The Cost Conundrum"

Ishmael

 

[mercury14]

You might want to read through this article. Tort reform is not the panacea some profess it to be, but it is a piece of the puzzle.

"The Cost Conundrum"

Ishmael

A microscopic one.

 

[koalabear]

ACA will not reduce costs, unless you are referring to the death panel.

 

[jeninflorida]

Jesus, you are one stupid man. Maybe if you had some real world experience you could understand how things work....Sad, but this post highlights your ignorance


this is the problem with your kind, and the obama slaves. They just don't understand how the world works, and they chose to be slaves in exchange for that welfare payment

So much for Republican claims that we needed tort reform instead of the ACA...




http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/

 

[RobDownSouth]

You might want to read through this article. Tort reform is not the panacea some profess it to be, but it is a piece of the puzzle.

"The Cost Conundrum"

Ishmael

That's an interesting non-sequitur of an article, and I thank you for posting it, but not for the reason you might think.

Several years ago, your two "bros" (Vetty and AJ) were howling at the moon.

AJ said it was a violation of doctors "constitutional rights" to own their own hospitals. Your article is a wonderful refudiation of his premise.

Secondly, Vetty opined that doctors loaded up patients with as many lab tests as possible in Texas, as insurance against litigation. I said that was a false presumption, the real reason was the more tests they ran, the more money they made.

Thanks for backing me up against your "bros"....together we can do great things.

Final score:
Team Downsouth/Ishmael - 2
Team AJ/Vetty - 0

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

As a side result, there are more lawyers driving domestic automobiles.

 

[sufisaint]

The only true tort reform is to cap lawyer fees at 15% which includes costs and have some kind of equitable loser pays...having a cap on jury awards does not stop greedy lawyers.

 

[jeninflorida]

The only true tort reform is to cap lawyer fees at 15% which includes costs and have some kind of equitable loser pays...having a cap on jury awards does not stop greedy lawyers.

yep, some greedy ass slimy lawyers like obama are going after AOL

attorney's are like politican's (and those that are in a management role in government) we must have an open season for hunting these vermin. that or modify cockroach/rat food for those kind

 

[mercury14]

The only true tort reform is to cap lawyer fees at 15% which includes costs and have some kind of equitable loser pays...having a cap on jury awards does not stop greedy lawyers.

So the answer is heavy-handed big government price fixing?

 

[koalabear]

So the answer is heavy-handed big government price fixing?

Yes, we'll have that now under ACA.

 

[jeninflorida]

So the answer is heavy-handed big government price fixing?

does it hurt to be that stupid? or are you too stupid to know that?

 

[mercury14]

Yes, we'll have that now under ACA.

Nope.

 

[koalabear]

Nope.

Yep.

.

 

[renard_ruse]

Well, now we know WHO the Lit liberals are.

I wondered if they were in the entertainment industry, university professors, government employees, union bosses, mainstream media journalists, unemployed welfare collectors, or trial lawyers. Based on the extreme doctrinaire liberalism they post on a near constant basis it HAD to be one of the above.

It appears they are trial lawyers. So, mystery solved.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well that's not actually surprising.

 

[Ishmael]

Nope.

Yes we do, and you obviously didn't read the article...........did you?

Ishmael

 

[neci]

Well, now we know WHO the Lit liberals are.

I wondered if they were in the entertainment industry, university professors, government employees, union bosses, mainstream media journalists, unemployed welfare collectors, or trial lawyers. Based on the extreme doctrinaire liberalism they post on a near constant basis it HAD to be one of the above.

It appears they are trial lawyers. So, mystery solved.

fuck you.

health care costs in texas kill you.

/none of the above and happily paying taxes while not taking from the gov't - liberal.