Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient due to a difference in political beliefs?

[Fear_Itself]

@Jackmannii

So now insurance rates have soared (for many docs, not just OB-GYNs), and still insurers are leaving the business (as are physicians in the hardest-hit specialties, who either quit or move to lower-risk locations).

What other significant expense is there for malpractice insurers besides lawsuit costs? Copy paper? Rubber bands?

You are not understanding how insurance companies make money. They do not use premiums to fund claims. Premiums are invested in the stock market, and the proceeds are used to pay claims. When the stock market is rising, everything works, and the insurance companies get rich. But when the stock market tanks like it did in 2001, huge investment losses deplete the capital that generates the cash flow to pay claims. It is a well documented business cycle in the insurance industry; increases in premiums track losses in the stock market, not increases in claims. Insurance companies raise premiums to replace capital lost in risky investments, or they leave the industry because the pickings are not as easy as they were during the bubble of the 90’s. For detailed statistics to prove this, read Medical Malpractice Insurance: Stable Losses/Unstable Rates (PDF).

[ralph124c]

I think that contracts with doctors might be a good idea. Before going to a doctor, have your lawyer draft a contract…spelling out :
-what the doctor will do
-what the patient will do
-what will happen in the event of an unforseen outcome (e.g. death)
Have both parties agree to the terms and sign…and no more problems!
Of course, there is “brrech of contract”-but that’s another story.
perhaps we need more contracts (written)…it would clarify things a lot more. :wally

[Jackmannii]

@Fear Itself

You are not understanding how insurance companies make money. They do not use premiums to fund claims. Premiums are invested in the stock market, and the proceeds are used to pay claims. When the stock market is rising, everything works, and the insurance companies get rich. But when the stock market tanks like it did in 2001, huge investment losses deplete the capital that generates the cash flow to pay claims.

There has been substantial stock market recovery since 2001 and yet premiums are still soaring and the number of malpractice insurers continues to shrink.

I have no doubt there are multiple factors involved in the current situation, but it does little to solve the problem if all the legal profession does is blame “bad investments”. (Or “bad doctors” - who oddly are disproportionately present in high-risk specialties requiring extensive post-graduate education).

[Fear_Itself]

I have provided ample evidence that premium increases track the stock market, not claims. If you disagree, and wish to debate the issue, please present evidence that supports your claim that premium increases are due to claims increases. This will prove to be a problem, since according to my cite, claims have actually shrunk in the last two years.

First, contrary to what the insurance and medical lobbies have alleged, the year 2003 saw no “explosion” in medical malpractice insurer payouts or costs to justify skyrocketing rate hikes. In fact, rather than exploding, inflation-adjusted payouts per doctor have dropped for the last two years. Payouts (in constant dollars) have been essentially flat or dropping since the mid-1980s.

I know the President is desperate to blame trial lawyers for high insurance rates, but like many of his policies, this is also not based in fact. It is unfortunate that so many people are nonetheless swayed by his faulty arguments.

[Jackmannii]

@Fear Itself

I have provided ample evidence that premium increases track the stock market, not claims. If you disagree, and wish to debate the issue, please present evidence that supports your claim that premium increases are due to claims increases.

Here you go.

*"By many accounts, the United States is in the midst of its third medical malpractice “crisis.” Physicians in several states are facing high and rising premiums. The largest national medical malpractice carrier and some large multistate physician-backed liability firms have recently left the market. Rising premiums are traced largely to increases in claims severity. (bolding added) Capping malpractice payments has been advanced as one approach to slowing the growth in premiums. This analysis finds that premiums in states that cap awards are 17.1 percent lower than in states that don’t cap. *

I know the President is desperate to blame trial lawyers for high insurance rates, but like many of his policies, this is also not based in fact. It is unfortunate that so many people are nonetheless swayed by his faulty arguments.

And while trial lawyers are desperate to blame anyone but themselves and the current flawed system, Bush has himself a political issue he can run with. Not that much will really get done to benefit patients and protect their access to medical care without comprehensive reform.

[Fear_Itself]

@Jackmannii

"By many accounts, the United States is in the midst of its third medical malpractice “crisis.”

And is it just coincidence that these crises have all followed stock market downturns? Pardon me if I am skeptical of data provided by the Physician Insurers Association of American (PIAA), an insurance industry association. Not what I would call independent or reliable. At least my statistics quoted from the AIR report are based on independent insurance data from A.M. Best & Co., which has provided data on the insurance industry for over 100 years.

Capping malpractice payments has been advanced as one approach to slowing the growth in premiums. This analysis finds that premiums in states that cap awards are 17.1 percent lower than in states that don’t cap.

Well, duh. Cars would be cheaper if there was a federal cap on steel prices, but I don’t recommend that as economic policy either.

Not that much will really get done to benefit patients and protect their access to medical care without comprehensive reform.

So would you support a cap on premiums as a part of tort reform and a cap on awards? Why is it now acceptable to interfere with the free market in a most unfair, lopsided manner? Shouldn’t the market determine the levels of both claims and premiums?

[Jackmannii]

@Fear Itself

And is it just coincidence that these crises have all followed stock market downturns? Pardon me if I am skeptical of data provided by the Physician Insurers Association of American (PIAA), an insurance industry association. Not what I would call independent or reliable. At least my statistics quoted from the AIR report are based on independent insurance data from A.M. Best & Co., which has provided data on the insurance industry for over 100 years.

The cite I provided is from Health Affairs, a peer-reviewed public health policy journal with numerous academic authors. The particular paper cited has 42 references (including A.M. Best), along with research studies, government agencies and industry sources. Yet out of all of these you choose to mention only that some data was obtained from an insurance industry group and attempt to dismiss the entire article on that basis.

Perhaps the broader issues of reform can be debated at a future time, when a less simplistic approach than “Insurance Companies Are Evil” can be seriously entertained.

[Cervaise]

I asked in my OP that we not get sidetracked into a debate on the merits of the malpractice-damage cap. This is about doctors and patients, not about tort reform, or at least that’s what I hoped it would be.

[Fear_Itself]

@Jackmannii

Perhaps the broader issues of reform can be debated at a future time, when a less simplistic approach than “Insurance Companies Are Evil” can be seriously entertained.

In the interests of respecting the OP’s wishes, I will defer further debate to another thread of your choosing, even if you title it “Trial Lawers are Evil”.