- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Healthcare costs and tort reform - crushing your myths
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:46 pm to Powerman
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:46 pm to Powerman
quote:
Didn't they do tort reform in TX and it didn't change much?
---------------
Correct
LINK
quote:
Physicians' liability insurance premiums have continued to drop since the passage of Proposition 12 and the state's landmark 2003 health care liability reforms. In the first nine months of 2005 alone, all five of Texas' largest physician insurers announced rate cuts; together, they will produce roughly $48.6 million in annualized savings for Texas physicians and greater access to care for Texas patients. Since the passage of Proposition 12, five carriers have announced double-digit rate reductions. For the first time in years, Texas physicians can competitively shop their policies. Meanwhile, lawsuit filings in most Texas counties have been cut in half since the passage of the 2003 reforms.
* Texas physicians have definitely slowed the reduction in services that had been spurred by the lawsuit abuse crisis. Some have begun to reinstate critical services.
* Before the reforms passed, the ranks of Texas internists, emergency care physicians, and orthopedic and neurosurgeons were flat or on the decline. From May 2003 through July 2005, however, more than 3,000 new doctors established practice in Texas, many of them serving in those high-risk specialties and in medically underserved regions of the state.
* Some cities are experiencing unprecedented success in physician recruitment. In the year after reforms were passed, Corpus Christi added 47 new physicians. That is a stark contrast to the 40 physicians the city lost in the five previous years. Similarly, Beaumont saw a net loss of 12 doctors in the 18 months prior to the passage of lawsuit reform. In the following 18 months, the community gained 21 physicians, including five anesthesiologists and 15 emergency medicine specialists.
Best and Worst States *pdf file
This post was edited on 2/2/14 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:46 pm to Zach
If you give me 1% of what you owe you haven't closed the gap. You have simply diminished the size of the gap. The gap is still there and a gap by definition is open so long as it exists.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:48 pm to lsusaintsfan4life
quote:Contingency fee agreements actually keep the number of cases low because what lawyer is going to spend his own money hiring experts and paying expenses (such as depositions) and spend years of his/her time on a case that they cannot win? Med mal lawyers do not have the time or money to spend on frivolous cases. They are, in fact, very selective and will only take cases that they are reasonably sure they can settle or win at trial.
How about we make it illegal for lawyers to take cases based on contingency fees like in other countries??? Let's shake it up and create a loser pays system??? Watch what would happen to the number of cases filed. If a person had a legit case there would be plenty of lawyers ready to take it. The BS would stop.
As for the loser pays idea, I would not be opposed to it if the medical review panel was eliminated so that the system you refer to is fair. As it stands now, though (as I referred to in my previous post), the medical review panel is slanted heavily towards the doctor.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:50 pm to northLAgoomba
I do find it hilarious that doctors are so tough on lawyers in this thread. As if there aren't plenty of whore doctors who are in bed with plaintiff attorneys for their own financial benefit.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:51 pm to Powerman
quote:
If you give me 1% of what you owe you haven't closed the gap. You have simply diminished the size of the gap. The gap is still there and a gap by definition is open so long as it exists.
I've explained it 3 times. That's my limit. Have a nice day.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:52 pm to Diamondawg
quote:It's almost impossible to get a valid number. It's too intertwined with insurance. If a patient doesn't NEED an MRI of their head, but... since 1) they aren't paying and 2) it lowers the chance of getting sued -- why would you NOT order as a doctor? There are almost no visible consequences to the doctor nor patient.
Gallup reports that one in four healthcare dollars spent in healthcare can be attributed to defensive medicine – about $650 billion annually.
Medicaid also complicates the issue. Those patients are much more likely to sue. And are very demanding of procedures above-and-beyond standard. NO doctor is going to admit to ordering unnecessary nor defensive procedures if Medicaid/Medicare is the payor. Opens them up to fraud prosecution.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:55 pm to Taxing Authority
The other flaw is the "study" examines costs. Not price. Two different things that are often misused interchangeably when talking about healthcare.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:57 pm to Zach
quote:
I've explained it 3 times. That's my limit. Have a nice day.
Then you were wrong 3 times. You could say that you are in the process of "closing" the gap but you haven't closed a damn thing if the gap is still there. Particularly if 99% of it is still there.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 2:59 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Taxing Authority
quote:
LINK
Wow, color me shocked. A physician's advocacy group stating that tort reform works. Thanks for that unbiased link.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:00 pm to northLAgoomba
quote:Nice ad hominem.
Wow, color me shocked. A physician's advocacy group stating that tort reform works. Thanks for that unbiased link.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Not almost impossible but totally impossible. Just noting that Powerman's study showed $46B which he called significant but not a big deal. This study is more than 10 times that or 1 in 4 healthcare dollars spent in the defensive mode.
It's almost impossible to get a valid number.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
It's almost impossible to get a valid number. It's too intertwined with insurance. If a patient doesn't NEED an MRI of their head, but... since 1) they aren't paying and 2) it lowers the chance of getting sued -- why would you NOT order as a doctor? There are almost no visible consequences to the doctor nor patient.
But let's not forget that doctors can be assholes on their own without the consideration of litigation.
Take away #2 and the doctor still has an incentive to do an MRI
In fact I was given a CAT scan once and I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have been done if I didn't have insurance. It was completely unnecessary in retrospect.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:06 pm to Powerman
quote:
But let's not forget that doctors can be assholes on their own without the consideration of litigation.
quote:Yet I am guessing you didn't call the a-hole out on it.
In fact I was given a CAT scan once and I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have been done if I didn't have insurance. It was completely unnecessary in retrospect.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:09 pm to Jbird
quote:
Yet I am guessing you didn't call the a-hole out on it.
Look up the word retrospect in a dictionary and get back to me. I had no idea he was gaming the system in real time. Now I'm certain that he was.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:11 pm to Powerman
quote:So you are saiyng your a little fricking slow on the uptake.
I had no idea he was gaming the system in real time. Now I'm certain that he was.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:12 pm to Powerman
quote:I'm not sure I'd characterize an over zealous doc and a-hole.
But let's not forget that doctors can be assholes on their own without the consideration of litigation.
quote:Absolutely. Third party payors are the ultimate cost driver. But practicing defensive medicine is WAY easier when neither the doc nor the patient is paying. It's a strong enabler.
Take away #2 and the doctor still has an incentive to do an MRI In fact I was given a CAT scan once and I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have been done if I didn't have insurance.
quote:Any negative finding looks unnecessary in hindsight.
It was completely unnecessary in retrospect.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:13 pm to northLAgoomba
quote:
Everyone is for tort reform until they themselves are the victims of malpractice and they see first-hand how unfair and outdated the med mal laws are in Louisiana. But, please don't let this stop you tort reformers from arguing how unfair the med mal laws are in Louisiana against these "poor" doctors.
Good post. A human life taken by physician negligence has been statutorily quantified at 500K. So we arent talking about "reform" we are talking about excusing (legally) medical negligence. There is no profession more protected than physicians.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:14 pm to Manky
quote:Politicians.
There is no profession more protected than physicians.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:15 pm to Jbird
quote:
So you are saiyng your a little fricking slow on the uptake.
I was young and naive and thought doctors adhered to a code of ethics. Apparently not all of them do.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 3:16 pm to Powerman
No down malpractice cases are a cause of costs...but another major factor is the implementation of new/experimental treatments and technology
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News