America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

[mookie1995]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Fair enough rover... Pass malpractice reform first

 

[geezer]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. This equals less than one-half of a percentage point of medical spending.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, don't be like dtp. Its okay to apologize to me when I've proven you wrong.

In my unlearned understanding, the escalating costs are largely due to prescribing expensive tests, scans, etc. in the hope of AVOIDING "jury awards, settlements and administrative costs". Second place would likely be the insurance premiums themselves. The costs listed above would be, if I'm right, of which there's always a chance, a third-place category of savings brought about by tort reform.
My point being that tort reform would reduce costs in other areas (wasteful testing) if it were structured so that practitioners didn't have to fear frivolous lawsuits. What's wrong with that? Oh yeah - the lobbyists - let's do nothing and keep them happy.

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. This equals less than one-half of a percentage point of medical spending.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, don't be like dtp. Its okay to apologize to me when I've proven you wrong.

IF some portion of 10B can be saved, its well worth doing. Howver, its not well worth doing if its used to try to scuttle a bill that will reduce the cost curve of health care spending growth while also extending coverage to tens of millions more Americans, as an independent analysis has shown for the Finance Committee bill. Take it up separately so that the motives won't be questioned. If it has merit, let its proponents run on that.

You're ignoring, as Geezer has mentioned, the fact that because of the current tort system, most doctors practice defensive medicine, ordering many more tests than are needed, thus adding substantially to costs. Additionally, again due to the tort system, their medical malpractice insurance premiums are sky high, and they pass on that cost to their patients and thus insurance companies (if they have one). I don't think the whole jury/trial/award Tort costs have ever been put forward by the right as the big cost driver in the Tort reform argument. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been mentioned by someone as a factor, but it's not the big driver.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

You're ignoring, as Geezer has mentioned, the fact that because of the current tort system, most doctors practice defensive medicine, ordering many more tests than are needed, thus adding substantially to costs. Additionally, again due to the tort system, their medical malpractice insurance premiums are sky high, and they pass on that cost to their patients and thus insurance companies (if they have one). I don't think the whole jury/trial/award Tort costs have ever been put forward by the right as the big cost driver in the Tort reform argument. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been mentioned by someone as a factor, but it's not the big driver.

Which is why, as I've posted, I support the effort. Like a lot of things, I'm guessing defensive medicine is going to be hard to quantify as opposed to actual payouts. However, its worth a look at reforming. What I will say to you in all honesty is that there's going to be on one side a significant effort to use this to cause a rift over the current health care reform bill, and likewise a lot of mistrust on the other side of the motives of anybody pushing this. Get the overall health care bill passed, and then you can address this with a clean slate.

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Yes it would, but there's no reason not to include in the current health care bill where it belongs, other than the fact that Washington is full of lawyers and most lawyers in the country support the current majority party.

Washington is also full of lobbyists for insurance companies, and universal health care would have passed 40 years ago if it wasn't for them.

I'll trade you: we shoot all the lawyers and all the lobbyists.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

From that flaming liberal Wall Street Journal newsrag, this sums up GOP health care proposals pretty well...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/25/gop-health-care-proposals-absent-or-abundant/

 

[walrus]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

From that flaming liberal Wall Street Journal newsrag, this sums up GOP health care proposals pretty well...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/25/gop-health-care-proposals-absent-or-abundant/

Lots of depth in that article, repubs suck, Dems rule, that will save anyone else from wasting their time reading it

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'll trade you: we shoot all the lawyers and all the lobbyists.

Works for me.

 

[leswp1]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Another anecdote: my friend was working when the x-ray tech pinned up an x-ray to the light-board thing and asked the doctor, is this clear enough or should we send him for an MRI? Without turning to even glance at the available image, the doctor's only question was, "What kind of insurance does he have?"
"Blue Cross"
"Yeah, we better get the MRI done".
I'm sure this happens all the time. All these rinky-dink rural hospitals are trying to keep up payments on these imaging machines by using them as often as possible. My pet peeve.

There are other reasons that might have happened. Some insurances require an entire string of things to occur before they will OK certain procedures or treatments. Talk about $ waste. Sometimes you need to order stuff that is totally silly because in order for the test you need to be approved you have to jump thru a bunch of useless hoops to get there.

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

More on tort reform from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574432853190155972.html

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

More on tort reform from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574432853190155972.html

I hate to break it to you, but as much as lawyers in the defense bar talk about "tort reform", they know **** well they make a ton of money from defending the current system. Just like in my field when somebody talks about "reforming" financial services, my first reaction is to check current prices on Maserati Quattroportes.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I hate to break it to you, but as much as lawyers in the defense bar talk about "tort reform", they know **** well they make a ton of money from defending the current system. Just like in my field when somebody talks about "reforming" financial services, my first reaction is to check current prices on Maserati Quattroportes.

I couldn't talk smack about my attorney friends' wives and have them get as remotely wound as when we talk about TORT reform

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The current configuration always makes money off the status quo. (A system is perfectly designed for the results it gets.)

You've got to expect (and regard very critically) opposition from the current beneficiaries, because they'd rather continue to score under the old rules than risk adapting to score under the new rules.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

You're ignoring, as Geezer has mentioned, the fact that because of the current tort system, most doctors practice defensive medicine, ordering many more tests than are needed, thus adding substantially to costs. Additionally, again due to the tort system, their medical malpractice insurance premiums are sky high, and they pass on that cost to their patients and thus insurance companies (if they have one). I don't think the whole jury/trial/award Tort costs have ever been put forward by the right as the big cost driver in the Tort reform argument. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been mentioned by someone as a factor, but it's not the big driver.

I'm too lazy to try to find any articles that may provide the answer to this question, but maybe you know.

I think a few states have actually enacted their own version of tort reform. Have any studies been performed that tell us whether as a result doctor's insurance premiums have gone done, or at least not risen as fast as other areas, and whether health care costs in general have gone down as a result of fewer tests being used?

I personally have no idea whether tort reform is a good idea. On the other hand, $250,000 isn't a whole lot of money anymore, especially if someone really and legitimately screws you up.

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm too lazy to try to find any articles that may provide the answer to this question, but maybe you know.

I think a few states have actually enacted their own version of tort reform. Have any studies been performed that tell us whether as a result doctor's insurance premiums have gone done, or at least not risen as fast as other areas, and whether health care costs in general have gone down as a result of fewer tests being used?

I personally have no idea whether tort reform is a good idea. On the other hand, $250,000 isn't a whole lot of money anymore, especially if someone really and legitimately screws you up.

Here's an example from Mississippi, where premiums went down by 42%:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ident----its-called-Mississippi-59990137.html

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm too lazy to try to find any articles that may provide the answer to this question, but maybe you know.

I think a few states have actually enacted their own version of tort reform. Have any studies been performed that tell us whether as a result doctor's insurance premiums have gone done, or at least not risen as fast as other areas, and whether health care costs in general have gone down as a result of fewer tests being used?

I too am too lazy to look up the articles, but yes a few states have indeed enacted some tort reforms. There is anecdotal evidence that it is working too, such as the rate of tests performed per doctor visit is down and fewer malpractice suits have been filed. These aren't statewide stats, but just observations by a few doctors and statements made by some malpractice insurance providers.

I personally feel that tort reform needs to be addressed and should be a part of the overall health care reform picture. No, it won't solve everything as some of my fellow conservatives like to claim, but it is still a problem that shouldn't be overlooked. Reducing them number of unnecessary tests done for no other reason then to avoid a malpractice suit, and reducing malpractice suits to legitimate negligence would be a very good thing IMO, irrespective of how much they contribute to health care costs.

 

[sagard]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Here's an example from Mississippi, where premiums went down by 42%.[/url]

So is this a situation where the problem should be handled individually by states?

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm not sure Mississippi is a state we should be taking health care reform tips from. Aren't they about the unhealthiest state in the nation (along with Kentucky, WVA, etc)?

 

[sagard]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm not sure Mississippi is a state we should be taking health care reform tips from. Aren't they about the unhealthiest state in the nation (along with Kentucky, WVA, etc)?

It certainly shouldn't be arrogantly dismissed either. If the Obama admin doesn't think tort reform is that important, then it should put into the bill to appease some of the sane conservatives.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm not sure Mississippi is a state we should be taking health care reform tips from. Aren't they about the unhealthiest state in the nation (along with Kentucky, WVA, etc)?

Just because they are starting out more unhealthy then other states in no way invalidates them making an improvement.