ITR champion: Agree 100%. Note also that labor costs are rising in the health care field, in part, because of rising health care costs (i.e., insurance) for the health care workers.
BrainGlutton: Your first objection is sound. OTOH, I did not mean to imply that greater demand was driving up prices. Hence my immediately-following post about health care costs as a proportion of the economy. As for your second objection, I see your point, but disagree. Yes, inflation could make health care more expensive, relatively speaking, but I think the others are right that the real “problem” is that we’re getting a lot more health care now than we did in the 50s.
tomndeb: Agree that malpractice insurance as a component-cost has risen. IMU, though, the added cost in terms of doctors visited, tests run, procedures undertaken, prophylactic care given, etc. has had a larger effect. Sorry, no cite. Just general impression from reading articles over the years, and the changes in my own experiences as a patient.
Happy Clam: Or, rather, blame us. Lawyers don’t create malpractice awards, juries do. As a statement of collective values, our juries are saying we expect a very high level of care. Not surprisingly, supplying that is very expensive. As is compensating those who don’t receive it, the cost of which ultimately is spread around to all of us by malpractice insurance.
One more. On rereading Kilvert’s Pagan’s post, I think the second paragraph is particularly apt. What flitted into my head just now is that it’s a Tragedy of the Commons problem. In other words, the resource (in this case, insurance) gets overused because individual consumers have no incentive to decline care. Nor, for that matter, do providers, since to stint on care is to risk malpractice claims.
I have to think that juries are oftentimes a pre-determined outcome type of thing, where they are carefully selected and deselected, rejected and detected, ultimately merely cleverly herded into providing the “right” verdict. A well-educated cross-section of the citizenry who were consistently populating our courtrooms would have an outcome quite different.
“Defensive medicine” certainly has had an effect. My evidence is merely anecdotal, but the medical types I know on the diagnostic side (radiologists, pathologists, etc.) regularly complain that they are asked to perform imagings/tests they believe are completely unnecessary by primary physicians to protect the primary physician from accusations on inadequate care.
Very true - This of course ties in with the whole increased malpractice costs increases that have changed the medical profession over the past 50 years. doctors order tests to make sure there is not a problem instead of verifying their diagnosis.
Another huge health-care cost increase I have not seen mentioned yet - Research and Technology. For an example, just look at how much the current array of imaging equipment costs as compared with 1950. Look at how the expense a firm has to go through to get a medication approved for use as compared to 1950 (along with the different amounts of time they were then able to keep exclusivity).
I would be more sympathetic to this point if these firms were (likely) not spending more on marketing than they are on research. Further, at least some of the research money is being spent on tweaking an exisiting formula to preserve a patent monopoly. Claritin’s evolution into Clarinex is a great example.
Why would you assume juries are “pre-determined” to assess liability? After all, the defendants have just as much incentive to push the selection process the other way. In fact, I think you’re mistaken. I think juries try honestly and fairly to apply the law. The problem is that we really do have a collective belief that health care should be nearly perfect and this shows up in the verdicts. To paraphrase Pogo, we have seen the enemy and he is us.
I don’t assume anything, jurors are skewed towards the less educated, the less professional and easily swayed. Yes, both sides get to eliminate potential jurors but the initial pool probably isn’t that great. And how do you suppose this collective belief that health care should be perfect got started? Maybe Marcus Welby M.D. is part of it. So are silly jurors and sillier lawyers.
Really? In just six lines of text in two posts, I count at least seven. I’m curious if you actually have a basis for being so critical of juries. I’ve known many people who sat on juries and none of them fit your profile.
BTW, bear in mind that it’s not just the juries. From time to time, a movement is made to rein in the lawsuits, most recently to defuse the “malpractice insurance crisis.” The political process, state and federal, generally refuses to curtail the right to sue. Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with that policy. But it cannot be sustained that we’re only in this mess because of silly jurors and sillier lawyers.
What if you split up health care into 3 categories?
Medical care,
Dental care &
Eye Care.
The most heavilly insured group, where individuals have the lowest percentage of out-of-pocket expense, would be medical. A significantly smaller percentage of people have full dental coverage - and even fewer have eye care coverage.
What is the inflation rate in those three groups? Is there a direct correlation between the % insurers pay vs. the inflation rate in those subgroups?
The legal system is a mess, and health care costs along with the OP would a “basis” for being critical indeed. Part of the costs track nicely with the rise of Medicare and Medicaid, and part of it due to malpractice awards.
A “Loser pays” would be a good start at reining
in malpractice costs, among other bogus legal fictions but would not eliminate our litigious society, on that part you are correct, but, crooked trial lawyers and activist judges have caused incalcuble damage to our society, there’s no shame in recognizing this - you’ll feel a lot better…
Start with everything you would consider modern medical care and then strip off everything that wasn’t available in the 1950’s. You will find that the vast majority of things weren’t available then or they were done in a way that we would find primitive. What would we be left with exactly? That is almost a GQ. I come up with bone setting, basic baby delivery, organ removals, some antibiotics, and basic infection treatment. If there was a clinic that specialized in Medicine: 1950’s style, it couldn’t be all that expensive to run.
My $0.02 is that many people are not paying for it, it is a ‘God given right’ tied to their employment. If you have a "God given right’ to healthcare you would not care about the cost as you won’t be paying it, and you would demand the best service.
Labor costs are dropping and productivity is on the rise. Recently saw an article saying lmalpractice suits are miniscule impact on medical industry.
Profiteering and greed can not be ignored.
This field has more sophistical arguments ,im my opinionn , than any other. We accept the staements of employment contracts providing care causing abuse. Most workers have great difficulty seeing doctors with their work schedules. Appointments are often made way in advance.
We pay too damn much. Our health care is far from the best, but is the most expensive.
Except as has been argued above, malpractice insurance isn’t a huge part of the costs.
As for crooked trial lawyers and activist judges, that has almost nothing to do with why health care costs. You might want to start another debate on that.