Wednesday, October 28, 2009

CBO: Tort Reform Could Save Billions

One can hardly blame physicians for throwing up their hands in disgust at President Obama and his Democratic buddies on Capitol Hill.

The Health Reform Express after all, has roared right past Tort Reform, which is the stop many if not most of the Long Whites like to get off.

First, the Big O did little more than genuflect at the issue during his memorable “you lie” speech last month. Then, Max Baucus and Senate Finance released a health reform proposal with nary a word on the subject... making it the fifth (out of 5) Congressional proposals—all penned by Democrats—to squelch the subject.

And to think these diss jobs came after the Long Whites voted for Obama in droves, and the notoriously conservative AMA came out to support health reform when the chips were down!

Alas the issue seemed to have flatlined altogether until last week when, lo and behold, the Congressional Budget Office released a report saying the Express could save up to $54 billion over the next ten years if it capped payouts on medical malpractice lawsuits.

That was 10 times higher than previous estimates, and supported the long-held Republican position on the matter.

The CBO report said the simple move would cut malpractice premiums, sure, but more importantly, it would create an environment that permitted the Long Whites to stop all that silly test ordering they do in order to cover their butts in a court of law.

The heartening report came to light in the form of a letter written by CBO director Douglas Elmendorf to Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, a long-time advocate of tort reform.

"These numbers show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policy-makers," Hatch chortled. "Unfortunately, up to now, that has been all the President and his Democratic allies in Congress have been willing to provide."

But the Big O—who once edited the Harvard Law Review let us not forget—remains staunchly opposed to caps on jury awards and as a result the Beltway odds makers remain steadfast: there’s little chance tort reform sees the light of day on this go ‘round.

In his letter, Elmendorf said that newly available evidence had prompted the CBO review. The review concluded that capping payouts at $250,000 for pain and suffering plus $500,000 for punitive damages "would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent."

The Feds would recoup most of the savings via reduced Medicare costs, according to the CBO report.

Maybe the Big O should rethink his position on the matter. Tort reform is just the sort of tasty bone that would coax Republican attack dogs onto the Express, not to mention solidifying support among providers, whose recent obstreperousness threatens to derail his efforts completely.

Besides, Obama is smart enough to understand that the Feds can’t implement tort reform all by themselves anyway, so long as states maintain jurisdiction in malpractice litigation and set insurance premiums.

That means if he come outs in favor of the concept, all he’s really doing is punting the matter to the states, and last time we checked, most of them feature a legislature dominated by Democrats.

Glenn Laffel MD, PhD
Sr. Vice President, Clinical Affairs, Practice Fusion

1 comments:

drsam on November 3, 2009 10:22 AM said...

I think it is blatantly obvious that the civil liability system in this country is a disaster for everyone except the involved trial lawyers. It is the epitomy of disgusting cynical corruption the way our "public servants" continually lick the boots of the trial lawyers in order to keep the campaign contributions flowing. The only thing more disgusting in my opinion are my fellow citizens who gleefully go along with this nonsense.

I find it interesting that the gist of most arguments I hear from the oponents of meaningful tort reform is that our current system is necessary in order to protect the rights of the citenzry.

Somehow however, most of the rest of the world manages to get by just fine without some ambulance chaser on the back of every phone book. Who knew the citizens of Canada and Western Europe all lived under such evil oppression?!?!

As an aside, I was in Boston a couple weeks ago at the American Academy of Family Physicians Annual Scientific Assembly. While there, I interacted with some recruiters from British Columbia and Ontario who were trying to recruit me to come practice medicine in Canada. One of the things they told me was that in Canada, my yearly premium for medical liability insurance would run about six hundred bucks (Canadian dollars) and that the government would actually reimburse me the full amount.

Six hundred bucks a year. That's not a typo. Wow. Just wow!

I haven't independently verified this, but if the recruiters were even sort of close to the actual amount, then I am flabergasted when I compare it to my yearly premium here in the U.S.

They said "We like doctors in Canada, so we don't belive in suing them frivolously. Also, in Canada it is illegal for an attorney to charge based upon a contingency fee."

I think this contigency fee thing is massively more important as a compenent of effective tort reform than any sort of limits on damage amounts.

Under our current system, the only difference I see between a plaintiff's attorney and a Somali pirate is a friggin' boat!

Search EHR Bloggers

Search here

Meet the EHR Experts

Glenn Laffel, MD, PhD - Dr. Laffel is a physician with a PhD in Health Policy from MIT. He serves as Practice Fusion's Senior VP, Clinical Affairs.

Robert Rowley, MD - Dr. Rowley is a family practice physician and Practice Fusion’s Chief Medical Officer.

Follow Us On

   

Practice Fusion on Twitter

About Practice Fusion

Insight from doctors and industry leaders on EHR and healthcare IT topics. Free, web-based Electronic Health Record solutions from Practice Fusion.

http://www.practicefusion.com

Categories

Blog Archive