# Reducing healthcare costs via tort reform? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484 "2009-07-27T21:23:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/41 "2009-07-28T14:50:19Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > “Defensive medicine” is not a problem that gets solved by tort reform. > > If you put a cap on economic damages, all it means is that a suit against me that would have been worth $1 million is now only worth $250,000 at most (let’s say). That really makes no difference to me. What I fear about a malpractice suit isn’t the dollar amount (since that’s covered by insurance anyway) but the hassle, the hit to my reputation, and the idea of having to relive my own failure over and over. I find it hard to believe that doctors aren’t motivated by the dollar amount of damages; that’s like saying drivers don’t care whether their car gets dented or totalled because it’s picked up by insurance. Furthermore, if lawyers can’t expect huge lottery-winning payoffs, the incentives for them to go after less definite or even frivolous cases will be much reduced. Supply and demand applies even in the legal system. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/42 "2009-07-28T14:51:59Z")
There is also the example of [Texas](http://athousandnations.com/2009/06/18/when-state-governments-compete-for-doctors/), which after it capped damages, saw an influx of doctors and a huge drop in its health insurance premiums. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/43 "2009-07-28T15:02:36Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > There is also the example of [Texas](http://athousandnations.com/2009/06/18/when-state-governments-compete-for-doctors/), which after it capped damages, saw an influx of doctors and a huge drop in its health insurance premiums. But again, [more doctors and lower insurance costs](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/jlanders/stories/DN-Landers_21bus.State.Edition1.9be351.html) did little or nothing to decrease healthcare spending: > [@](#): > > And according to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, Medicare spending in Texas rose 24 percent in the three years after the state capped malpractice awards. In Dallas, it went up 27 percent during the same period, 2003 to 2006 ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/44 "2009-07-28T15:55:36Z")
Your cite talks only about Medicare, which is strongly affected by demographic factors. Who took the hit from lowered costs of private insurance - insurance companies? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/45 "2009-07-28T15:59:22Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Your cite talks only about Medicare No it doesn’t (plus, how much do you think demographic factors changed in years?) > [@](#): > > Families USA, a consumer advocate group in Washington, found health care premiums in Texas increased 86.8 percent from 2000 to 2007. > > The cost of the average family health insurance policy went from $6,638 to $12,403. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/46 "2009-07-28T19:05:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Yes, pretty much. I never took a position one way or another until I had a decent cite. However, that doesn’t mean tort reform is useless - it’s clear that medical malpractice is having a disproportionate effect on some regions and on some specialties, and the cost savings are not trivial in absolute dollars. In addition, the same CBO report says that its’ increasing at twice the rate of inflation. So there should still be tort reform. But it’s not a solution to the overall funding issue. Studies also show that actual malpractice cases far exceed the number of either court cases brought against them or awards. So maybe what this shows is that malpractice insurance should be socialised. That way doctors get cheaper premiums and there’d be more money to pay out to deserving cases. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/47 "2009-07-29T00:16:05Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > But again, [more doctors and lower insurance costs](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/jlanders/stories/DN-Landers_21bus.State.Edition1.9be351.html) did little or nothing to decrease healthcare spending: But did it grow at the same rate as other states without the caps? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/48 "2009-08-03T20:40:55Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I would like to know the profits of companies that sell malpractice insurance. I read that less than 1/3 of the people who have a legitimate suit, actually do. I suspect our insurance companies are making a ton. I read this next fact in Time magazine a while back but don’t have a cite for any of this. Over the last 10 years the cost of claims paid by medical malpractice insurance companies went up about 10%. Over the same period the premiums about doubled. I also believe that you spend most of your lifetime medical dollars in the last few months of your lifetime. Health insurance companies spend over 20% of their premium income on administrative costs (underwriting, claims adjustment, etc.), medicare spends about 3%. Doctors spend about 10% of their income dealing with multiple insurance companies. At the margin, every dollar of medical treatment spent in an emergency room cold have been prevented by less than 10 cents worth of preventative care. I guess what I’m saying is that there is a lot more efficeincy we can squeeze out of our helathcare system if we chose to do some squeezing. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/49 "2009-08-03T20:57:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > At the margin, every dollar of medical treatment spent in an emergency room cold have been prevented by less than 10 cents worth of preventative care. People keep spouting this nonsense. This only works if you only count the costs of the person you are treating in the emergency room. So someone goes to the emergency room with a massive heart attack, and sure we could have tested and treated that person for high-cholesterol, high blood pressure and whatever else for 10% of the cost of treating the heart attack. But you would also have to treat the other 10, 20, 30 or 50 people who had the same risk profile, but never ended up having a heart attack. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/50 "2009-08-03T21:12:25Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Malpractice refers to accidents, 99% of the time. Doctors don’t sabotage their own work, and trying to dissuade them from accidents is rather pointless. False dilemma. Medical malpractice is neither an accident nor an intentional act. Rather, it is a failure to act reasonably in mitigating the chances of an accident. Examples of medical malpractice? Failing to read the chart before cutting up the wrong limb. Failing to check a drug interaction. Etc. It is absolutely true that some medical malpractice litigation is frivolous. It is equally true that some of it is legitimate. But the ratio is nowhere near 99:1, and it is never the case that a mere accident is sufficient for liability (though perhaps sufficient for an insurance company to settle because they can just past the cost along). ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/51 "2009-08-03T22:18:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > False dilemma. Medical malpractice is neither an accident nor an intentional act. Rather, it is a failure to act reasonably in mitigating the chances of an accident. Examples of medical malpractice? Failing to read the chart before cutting up the wrong limb. Failing to check a drug interaction. Etc. Which are examples of accidents. People are fallible beasts. Best intentions aside, at some point you’re going to do something really stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/52 "2009-08-03T22:29:19Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Which are examples of accidents. People are fallible beasts. Best intentions aside, at some point you’re going to do something really stupid. If you categorize everything into accident or intentional, I agree that they can be called “accidents.” But the law recognizes a third category–easily avoidable accidents: those accidents which are avoided by exercising reasonable care. My concern was simply that by using the term “accident,” you conflate both those accidents which are an inevitable consequence of medicine and those which are avoidable by following ordinary measures of carefulness. It is not too much to ask, I don’t think, that a doctor check contraindications each time he administers a drug. The victim of this negligence should rightly receive compensation from the doctor. Plenty of other professions are held to the same standard, including lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484/53 "2009-08-03T22:32:03Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Which are examples of accidents. People are fallible beasts. Best intentions aside, at some point you’re going to do something really stupid. I think of ‘accidents’ as things outside your control. Malpractice isn’t. It is in your control whether you read the chart and amputate. It is in your control whether you count the number of surgical pads that you used, and ensure none are left in the patient. If you don’t meet the standard of care expected, you have committed malpractice. That’s not an accident in the way most people think of the term, even if it isn’t a conscious choice to chop the wrong leg off or sew up a big pad inside of the patient’s chest cavity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reducing-healthcare-costs-via-tort-reform/504484.md?page=2)