Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi (tort reform)

Washington Examiner ^ | 21 September 2009 | David Freddoso

[Erik Latranyi]

Since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state's largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.

That is the story that Mississippi's Republican, governor, Haley Barbour, offered on Friday, speaking at the Heritage Foundation. He also made an observation about President Obama's decision to offer only token "demonstration projects" on lawsuit abuse rather than address it meaningfully in his health care reform proposal.

[Erik Latranyi]

I assure you that the Obama/Sebelius test project will not see any savings because it will not be done correctly like it has been done in Mississippi.

[Qwackertoo]

Thank you Haley Barbour . . . maybe you can show Bob Riley next door in AL how it’s done.

[GraceG]

Oh, but didn’t you hear that the Republicans have no Ideas whatsoever when it comes to Health Care reform?

The nice man who is always on the telly with his teleprompters told me all about it.

[Personal Responsibility]

It can’t be a good idea because a liberal didn’t think of it.

[suthener]

It might happen if the trial lawyers didn’t own Alabama.

[ejonesie22]

You don’t think they had a hold here in Mississippi? We were the Jackpot Justice center of the world at one point.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state's largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.

That's why liberals are terrified of Torte reform. It will prevent a lot of John Edwards's - and future Democrat "lawmakers"

[the_Watchman]

Have any savings been passed on to consumers in the form of reduced health coverage premiums?

There was a doctor on the radio in Phoenix on Sunday morning who contended that premiums in Texas did not reflect improvement after the passage of tort reform legislation. His contention was that vertical market integration continued to result in unnecessary lab tests and procedures. In other words, doctors owning labs and hospitals induced them to continue to perform procedures which helped pay for their own facilities.

My health plan started to insist that lab procedures be done at specific labs. They have prevented the doctors from using their own labs.

Restrictions on vertical market integration may need to be added to tort reform in order to tackle the problem.

I would like to add that my sister’s husband had a heart attack almost 20 years ago. The ambulance took him to the hospital where he was treated. After he was stabilized my sister attempted to move him to a hospital with a better cardiac unit. The doctor insisted that he could not be moved. She found out that the doctor assigned to the case had a financial stake in the hospital AND the ambulance service which selected that hospital. After my brother-in-law died at this hospital, my sister considered a lawsuit. Tort reform should not provide protection for this type of racket. That being said, it is possible that every decision made had been the correct one for the patient. But the potential conflict of interest certainly raises suspicions.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I heard it worked in Texas and Florida as well.

[chrisser]

Have any savings been passed on to consumers in the form of reduced health coverage premiums?

Uh, the second sentence...

"The state's largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect"

[rightly_dividing]

Bob Riley

Cant wait for him to be outa here.

[hocndoc]

To borrow a favorite of Obama: we prevented the costs from going up.

In Texas, our malpractice rates were increasing by 25% a year. For the last few years, mine have decreased by that much. Instead of over $10,000 for ***part time malpractice*** (20 hours a week), it’s now under $6000 a year.

I doubt I’d be able to afford insurance without tort reform. And I’m lucky enough to never have been sued.

We also have more super-sub-specialists, such as neurosurgeons. How would you like a ride in an ambulance if you had a head trauma?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090407_Toward_a_healthier_economy.html

“”Texas is a prime example. In 2003, Texas enacted comprehensive legal reform, including appropriate limits on noneconomic damages (compensation for such intangibles as emotional distress). As a result, Texas has seen an incredible influx of physicians. According to the Texas Medical Board, more than 10,000 doctors have either returned to the state or decided to move there as a direct result of the legal reforms.”

“”Texas turnaround””
“Communities in Texas that were once underserved medically now have access to primary and specialty care that they didn’t have before. Many parts of the state suffered chronic shortages of key specialists, such as obstetrician/gynecologists and neurosurgeons, but now have a full complement of these physicians.

“According to a 2008 study by the Perryman Group, A Texas Turnaround: The Impact of Lawsuit Reform on Business Activity in the Lone Star State, tort reform has resulted in “nearly a half-million jobs in the state of Texas” and an increase in annual personal income of almost $32 billion. Additionally, the study found that “annual output in Texas is $51.2 billion higher, while total spending is up $112.5 billion each year as a result of [civil-justice] reforms.” And almost 430,000 previously uninsured Texans now have health insurance.”

More:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html

[socialismisinsidious]

Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care daily digest PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this daily digest ping list (one ping per day of links to pertinent articles).

[MissNomer]

Have any savings been passed on to consumers in the form of reduced health coverage premiums?

Uh, the second sentence...

"The state's largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect"

This quote is about medical liability insurance (for doctors), not health insurance (for patients).

[VOA]

“You don’t think they had a hold here in Mississippi? We were the Jackpot
Justice center of the world at one point.”

That’s certainly been my impression from a few episodes on “Sixty Minutes”
that showed how malpractice/medical lawyers seemed to have little problem
in getting MEGA-buck awards for what I’d call piddling or questionable
injuries to patients.

And I say that as person that should have taken one ER MD to court
for an bush-leauge error in treating an infection that nearly cost
me a leg.

[the_Watchman]

Uh, you need to read my question!

“passed on to CONSUMERS”

The sentence you allude to refers to the premiums doctors pay for liability insurance. This is indeed great, but the question being posed is whether the reduction in liability premiums has resulted in lower fees to patients and/or lower patient insurance premiums.

[jdub]

I repeatedly see comments in various places of doctors complaining of lawsuits, yet then state that they have never been sued. Can you tell us a rough percentage of your colleagues that are in the same boat? It seems to me that stories abound of malpractice suits, but scant evidence exists of their reality.

[chrisser]

My apologies.

That's what I get for multi-tasking and FReeping at the same time.

[Ann Archy]

Yes you were....thank GOD for Haley Barbour.

[Huck]

This is an interesting story. I find my self wondering on what grounds federal tort reform legislation is constitutional. It seems to be a case of the feds usurping state authority to me. If the states can pass tort reform, and if torts are traditionally handled by state courts, shouldn't the feds butt out? I'm thinking the only way the feds get to stick their snout into the issue is by continuing the odiously broad application of the commerce clause. This, it seems to me, is antithetical to conservative principles. Maybe someone can set me straight on this, or else I'll have to think it's just another case of why we're so screwed. Everyone falls for federal power-grabs on one issue or another.

Someone please explain to me why and how it's appropriate for the feds to cap awards on state civil cases, when states are perfectly capable of governing themselves?

[70times7]

Well said - if the states would stand up and do their jobs the fed would have to butt out. Saw a FR post on gun laws - Montanna and Tennessee have passed legislation and are going to court on it. Over 50% of the other 48 are working on it - it basically states that ANY firearms and ammo mfgd’ and sold in state to residents are none of the ATF’s f’in business so go pound sand. I LOVE it. More states need to stand up and kick Obama and the federal government to the curb - health care, 2nd ammendment, etc. etc.

[Huck]

That’s true. But unless I’m mistaken, it means the GOP needs to butt out of tort reform, and the conservative base needs to understand it’s not a federal issue. Unless I’m mistaken.

[Huck]

By the way, the ATF could sue and win against the states in that case, because the SCOTUS--INCLUDING SCALIA (in fact IIRC he wrote the majority opinion)--has said that interstate commerce doesn't mean just interstate commerce. It means any commerce that might have a significant impact on interstate commerce, blah blah.

The case had to do with people growing marijuana in-state. They used the same argument the gun law people you mention use. That it's not interstate commerce. Butt out. Well, Scalia and a majority of the court said no. Since you could theoretically sell it across state lines, it's interstate commerce. That was SCALIA. IIRC, Thomas dissented. He's actually much better than Scalia.

And of course conservative drug warriors were happy to see the decision, odious as it was, because, like most people, they are willing to throw principle overboard for their own prejudices and preferences. I think the same thing may be at work here with tort reform. Does anyone even question the constitutionality?