The Health Care Reform Address Thread

Schneed - as to malpractice. I understand the costs but, other than capping punitive awards, what can other ways are their to cut malpractice insurance? Even capping puni's (which this administration would have a hard time doing b/c of its allegiance to the trial lawyers) may not work - I am simply unsure of what percentage of awards they make up and what the trend is.

Cutting puni's is it. Malpractice is a simple business.

The cash in to malpractice insurance firms comes in the form of premiums. Cash out comes in the form of paying punitive damages and settlements.

The settlements come down if punitive damages come down. It's pretty simple.

I can tell you that at our healthsystem malpractice premiums account for about 3-4% of our total expenses.

Malpractice premiums are increasing at about 15% per year.

So while the rest of our costs increase at about 6% per year, because malpractice is going up by 15%, it is responsible for a half of a percentage increase in overall expense growth within healthcare.

Reducing overall healthcare expenses across the nation by a tenth of a percent would cut the deficit drastically. This could be accomplished by getting malpractice premiums to increase by only 12% instead of by 15%.

Small changes in expense growth accumulate to massive savings across the system, at least when compared to the projected deficit.

The real cost of malpractice is something I've been looking for for a while. Can you reference statistics on the subject matter?

Learning a little as I go here. Tell me what you think of the validity of this study. http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB%20Report_Final.pdf

I am not a numbers guy and this is a very statistic heavy study but it argues that the majority of malpractice costs are essentially due more to rising costs of care and lack of doctor disciplinary actions ("only 18 percent of doctors have been responsible for even a single malpractice payment" - yet only 33% of those doctors who have had 10 or more claims paid have been subjected to discipline).

The study relies on data collected by the "National Practitioner Data Bank" are you familiar with this entity? If so, do you believe it to be a credible data base?

Just from a general skimming of the information on the internet turned up by my search for "malpractice awards punitive percentage" seems to suggest that this is another one of those areas where stats don't support intuitive/common thought. Many states have capped punitive dams (~20), five don't allow them at all. PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS, CAPS, AND STANDARDS (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ins/rpt/2003-R-0743.htm). Even so, malpractice costs increase.

Not sure what all this means except that we are back to "no easy answers".

The real cost of malpractice is something I've been looking for for a while. Can you reference statistics on the subject matter?

What sort of stats are you looking for? Premium costs? Average payouts?
Again, take a look at the consumer study I referenced. Lots of stuff in there. It's a "consumer" organization, don't know if it's just a front for the trial lawyers. Also, while the data seems to be pretty impartial, hard to tell from 15-20 mins of searching/skimming.

Cutting puni's is it. Malpractice is a simple business.

The cash in to malpractice insurance firms comes in the form of premiums. Cash out comes in the form of paying punitive damages and settlements.

The settlements come down if punitive damages come down. It's pretty simple.

Cash out comes from paying judgments and settlements. Not just punitive damages. Judgments & settlements are also made up of compensatory awards. Reducing compensatory damage awards also requires reducing medical costs (i.e. the cost for Doctor B to fix what Doctor A did wrong). So, I don't think it is as clear cut as you paint it. Capping punitive damages seems to be one (possibly small) aspect, but it does not appear to be a cure all for the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Bring on the MICC

The real cost of malpractice is something I've been looking for for a while. Can you reference statistics on the subject matter?

No don't have anything like that. I'm just referencing information from our own internal financial statements.

Cash out comes from paying judgments and settlements. Not just punitive damages. Judgments & settlements are also made up of compensatory awards. Reducing compensatory damage awards also requires reducing medical costs (i.e. the cost for Doctor B to fix what Doctor A did wrong). So, I don't think it is as clear cut as you paint it. Capping punitive damages seems to be one (possibly small) aspect, but it does not appear to be a cure all for the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Bring on the MICC

You're right, the compensatory component isn't likely to be reduced. But capping the punitive would make a dent large enough to move the meter on the federal deficit.

What sort of stats are you looking for? Premium costs? Average payouts?
Again, take a look at the consumer study I referenced. Lots of stuff in there. It's a "consumer" organization, don't know if it's just a front for the trial lawyers. Also, while the data seems to be pretty impartial, hard to tell from 15-20 mins of searching/skimming.

What I'm really looking for a survey of how much doctors are paying in insurance premiums on average and the average award by jurist. It's really hard to assess the scope of the problem without knowing the statistical data on who/what/when/where.

It seems that this information is top secrete and no one wants to disclose it. Not even by a government agency (http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/npdb.html) responsible for tracking this information.

Access to information in the NPDB is available to entities that meet the eligibility requirements defined in the provisions of P.L. 99-660 (http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/legislation/title4.html) and the NPDB regulations (http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/legislation/Final_Regulations_Title_IV.pdf) http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/images/pdf_icon.gif. In order to access information, entities must first register with the Data Bank.
NPDB information is not available to the general public (http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/genpublic.html). However, information in a form that does not identify any particular entity or practitioner is available.

What I'm really looking for a survey of how much doctors are paying in insurance premiums on average and the average award by jurist. It's really hard to assess the scope of the problem without knowing the statistical data on who/what/when/where.

It seems that this information is top secrete and no one wants to disclose it. Not even by a government agency (http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/npdb.html) responsible for tracking this information.

I have two friends who are doctors and one pays $90,000 and the other around $85,000 between the two only one was sued about 5 years back. Not sure what they received but my buddy said he screwed up in that case.

Ok, this has nothing to do with health care but I did not feel it was worth another thread. Obama did the right thing yesterday and gave the OK to hit a terrorist which we have been trying to track down.
Key al Qaeda operative killed in U.S. strike, Somalia says - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/09/15/somalia.strike/index.html) He also imposed new punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tires coming into the U.S. from China which was also a good move. I just thought I would post this for our friends on the left who seem to think we can never say anything good about OBama.
Obama imposes tariffs on Chinese tires; Beijing calls move 'protectionism' | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/politics/59082617.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7Pa P3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

I also used their talking point news source CNN.