Comments on: THE WRATH OF ATTORNEYS http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:00:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jeffrey Ford http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-460170 Jeffrey Ford Mon, 31 May 2010 23:41:21 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-460170 First, thank you Phil for your vocabulary lesson on "ad hominem fallacy". It seems improper use of this obscure phrase infuriates you. I will disclose that I'm a practicing ER physician (Mr. Fowler was honest enough to disclose his bias and I have one as well). I'm also no expert on the effects of caps on medical malpractice costs. I just want to point out three things: 1. Direct costs in malpractice cases (jury awards and more commonly, settlements) are completely insignificant compared to the cost of dending cases win-or-lose. Our lawyers can run charges up to and beyond $100,000 on some groundless cases before they make it to court. But even those costs are nothing compared to the jacked up cost of defensive medicine. Don't think the patient needs a CT scan but order it anyway because we simply are not allowed to be wrong. Same with unnecessary C-section deliveries, the list goes on and on. That cost is very significant, and who pays? everybody. 2. The insurance companies are not the problem, they are simply a product of our dysfunctional system and they are the pots of gold trial attorneys are shooting for. 3. Faultless tragedy like a child with cerebral palsy. Who wins with a $11 million verdict? The poor child certainly not, the doctor and hospital lose, people who pay health insurance or have emplyers who pay for them, they all have to pay more. There is only one winner with our system, the plaintiffs attorney who pockets an obscene amounts of money PS no a jury is not capable of consistantly separating fact from emotion in a case like this, attorneys are very easily able to manipulate them, I'v seen it myself. First, thank you Phil for your vocabulary lesson on “ad hominem fallacy”. It seems improper use of this obscure phrase infuriates you.

I will disclose that I’m a practicing ER physician (Mr. Fowler was honest enough to disclose his bias and I have one as well). I’m also no expert on the effects of caps on medical malpractice costs. I just want to point out three things:
1. Direct costs in malpractice cases (jury awards and more commonly, settlements) are completely insignificant compared to the cost of dending cases win-or-lose. Our lawyers can run charges up to and beyond $100,000 on some groundless cases before they make it to court. But even those costs are nothing compared to the jacked up cost of defensive medicine. Don’t think the patient needs a CT scan but order it anyway because we simply are not allowed to be wrong. Same with unnecessary C-section deliveries, the list goes on and on. That cost is very significant, and who pays? everybody.
2. The insurance companies are not the problem, they are simply a product of our dysfunctional system and they are the pots of gold trial attorneys are shooting for.
3. Faultless tragedy like a child with cerebral palsy. Who wins with a $11 million verdict? The poor child certainly not, the doctor and hospital lose, people who pay health insurance or have emplyers who pay for them, they all have to pay more. There is only one winner with our system, the plaintiffs attorney who pockets an obscene amounts of money

PS no a jury is not capable of consistantly separating fact from emotion in a case like this, attorneys are very easily able to manipulate them, I’v seen it myself.

]]> By: C. Wesley Fowler http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-7505 C. Wesley Fowler Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:28:55 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-7505 I inadvertently stumbled on this blog entry again. I'm sorry I'm so late. In one brief google search I located many objective sources which dispute your claims that caps on damages result in any substantial reduction in medical malpractice premiums. One of them is linked below. If you will email me at the address I provided Monday I can direct you to sources that I think even someone with your agenda will accept. Outside insurance lobby propaganda I have not found this issue to be real point of dispute. On the other hand, if physcians and their carriers are truly interested in saving money they should consider spending more time listening to patients and less time trying to avoid responsibility for the damage caused by their errors. http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=597066 I inadvertently stumbled on this blog entry again. I’m sorry I’m so late. In one brief google search I located many objective sources which dispute your claims that caps on damages result in any substantial reduction in medical malpractice premiums. One of them is linked below. If you will email me at the address I provided Monday I can direct you to sources that I think even someone with your agenda will accept. Outside insurance lobby propaganda I have not found this issue to be real point of dispute.

On the other hand, if physcians and their carriers are truly interested in saving money they should consider spending more time listening to patients and less time trying to avoid responsibility for the damage caused by their errors.

http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=597066

]]> By: Anon http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1986 Anon Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:43:11 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1986 By the way, do you know who files the vast majority of all lawsuits? Businesses, usually suing other businesses. What's their damage cap going to be, or is it industry specific? Which lobbyists will get to set those? By the way, do you know who files the vast majority of all lawsuits? Businesses, usually suing other businesses. What’s their damage cap going to be, or is it industry specific? Which lobbyists will get to set those?

]]> By: Anon http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1985 Anon Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:42:12 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1985 Let's see your proof that the system is "out of control" and "doing real damage". After all, tort claims are down and the average personal injury payout is about $30K. Insurers are extremely profitable, and physicians are the highest paid profession in the world. So if they are suffering "real damage", who else is as well? Who else, in your view, should get damage caps, and in what amounts? $1 isn't any more absurd than any other number. It has no relation to the facts of the case either. Let’s see your proof that the system is “out of control” and “doing real damage”. After all, tort claims are down and the average personal injury payout is about $30K. Insurers are extremely profitable, and physicians are the highest paid profession in the world.

So if they are suffering “real damage”, who else is as well? Who else, in your view, should get damage caps, and in what amounts?

$1 isn’t any more absurd than any other number. It has no relation to the facts of the case either.

]]> By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1973 Catron Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:24:27 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1973 You are now descending into absurdity. The idea of caps is to bring sanity to a system that is out of control and doing real damage. I don't think a $1 cap is consistent with that general goal. You are now descending into absurdity. The idea of caps is to bring sanity to a system that is out of control and doing real damage. I don’t think a $1 cap is consistent with that general goal.

]]> By: Anon http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1959 Anon Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:15:02 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1959 Without knowing the states, it's impossible to. For example, if Pennsylvania is one of those noncapped states included, it has higher premiums than most thanks to its two largest insurers declaring bankruptcy due to what the Insurance Commission termed "financial mismanagement". The other insurers had to pick up the tab for that in terms of contributions to the state fund, resulting in increased premiums. The better way to determine if caps have an effect is look at the average payouts among similar injuries. The even broader question, which you as a professed libertarian should be asking, is why physicians should be guaranteed a set malpractice premium, or that insurers should be guaranteed an amount of loss on the risks they take? If your justification for caps is lower premiums, why not just set the cap at $1? And why stop at physicians - shouldn't everyone have that benefit? Or should we go to no-fault? Without knowing the states, it’s impossible to. For example, if Pennsylvania is one of those noncapped states included, it has higher premiums than most thanks to its two largest insurers declaring bankruptcy due to what the Insurance Commission termed “financial mismanagement”. The other insurers had to pick up the tab for that in terms of contributions to the state fund, resulting in increased premiums.

The better way to determine if caps have an effect is look at the average payouts among similar injuries.

The even broader question, which you as a professed libertarian should be asking, is why physicians should be guaranteed a set malpractice premium, or that insurers should be guaranteed an amount of loss on the risks they take?

If your justification for caps is lower premiums, why not just set the cap at $1? And why stop at physicians - shouldn’t everyone have that benefit? Or should we go to no-fault?

]]> By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1948 Catron Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:16:09 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1948 You still haven't explained the 17% difference between cap and non-cap states. You still haven’t explained the 17% difference between cap and non-cap states.

]]> By: Anon http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1820 Anon Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:55:51 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1820 The Heritage Foundation provided you no data to support the claim. They simply made the conclusory statement that since Texas adopted tort reform, their rates have gone down. That claim is undercut by the facts that rates declined nationwide, while not coincidentally, the bond market improved. That is not a vague reference. One need only follow the stock market and compare where it is to when a "crisis" was declared in medical malpractice insurance. It doesn't track an increase in claims or payouts, but the overall economy. And payouts are what matter. The Heritage Foundation provided you no data to support the claim. They simply made the conclusory statement that since Texas adopted tort reform, their rates have gone down. That claim is undercut by the facts that rates declined nationwide, while not coincidentally, the bond market improved.

That is not a vague reference. One need only follow the stock market and compare where it is to when a “crisis” was declared in medical malpractice insurance. It doesn’t track an increase in claims or payouts, but the overall economy. And payouts are what matter.

]]> By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1818 Catron Thu, 31 May 2007 22:49:44 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1818 My evidence includes the Heritage Foundation data. Vague references to the business cycle are not very convincing as a refutation of that evidence. My evidence includes the Heritage Foundation data. Vague references to the business cycle are not very convincing as a refutation of that evidence.

]]> By: Anon http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1816 Anon Thu, 31 May 2007 22:02:01 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/05/07/the-wrath-of-attorneys/#comment-1816 "So, lawyerly dudgeon notwithstanding, my attitude on the need for tort reform will remain firm, at least until I receive some credible evidence that I’m wrong. " What evidence do you have that you're right? Take for example the Heritage Foundation's claim about Texas. Insurance rates have declined in both capped and non-capped states, just as they have moved with the economy for the past thirty years. Caps do nothing but make it harder for those who don't work, such as the elderly and children, to obtain an attorney. “So, lawyerly dudgeon notwithstanding, my attitude on the need for tort reform will remain firm, at least until I receive some credible evidence that I’m wrong. ”

What evidence do you have that you’re right? Take for example the Heritage Foundation’s claim about Texas. Insurance rates have declined in both capped and non-capped states, just as they have moved with the economy for the past thirty years. Caps do nothing but make it harder for those who don’t work, such as the elderly and children, to obtain an attorney.

]]>