Known risks and Tort reform

[Wild Cobra]

I think we can all acknowledge that almost any medical procedure involves risk. Therfore I ask, why not get a firm handle of tort reform, and not allow people to sue over any little thing gone wrong.

Random, in another thread, you said:


http://www.imaginis.com/biopsy/risks-of-biopsy

Risks of [Breast cancer]
Biopsy


among others easily found witha google search. (http://www.google.com/search?q=biopsy+risk)

Biopsies always entail some risk and although generally this risk is minor, it is NOT fully "harmless", especially if you get an antibiotic-resistant infection.

*Fact* fail.

Analogy win.

So should a patient be able to sue under a worse case scenario, if there is no evidence the medical staff did anything wrong?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think we can all acknowledge that almost any medical procedure involves risk. Therfore I ask, why not get a firm handle of tort reform, and not allow people to sue over any little thing gone wrong.

Random, in another thread, you said:



So should a patient be able to sue under a worse case scenario, if there is no evidence the medical staff did anything wrong?

If the hospital was unsanitary and that caused the fatal infection then yes they should be able to sue.

define 'little thing'?

Since tort reform has passed in TX the cost of insurance has continued to rise. In addition TX has the highest rate of uninsured people in the USA.

So what exaclty has tort reform done in TX?

[Wild Cobra]

If the hospital was unsanitary and that caused the fatal infection then yes they should be able to sue.

define 'little thing'?

Since tort reform has passed in TX the cost of insurance has continued to rise. In addition TX has the highest rate of uninsured people in the USA.

So what exaclty has tort reform done in TX?
Do you know how to read?
if there is no evidence the medical staff did anything wrong?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you know how to read?


It's hard getting through your stupid theoretical questions.


Define little things..

What has tort reform done for TX?

[DarrinS]

On a somewhat related note:


http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/13/erin-brockovich-town-shows-no


"Erin Brockovich" Town Shows No Cancer Cluster





Hinkley, California, the town made famous in the Oscar-winning Julia Roberts movie Erin Brockovich, does not show any evidence of an increased rate of cancers.

Pacific Gas and Electric, which released a toxic plume of hexavalent chromium 6 from a Hinkley-based natural gas pipeline station, paid a record $333 million to settle a class-action suit in 1996. But the California Cancer Registry has now completed three studies that show cancer rates remained normal in from 1988 to 2008.

From a very strange story by the Los Angeles Times' Louis Sahagun, who starts out with the Registry's findings but then lists more anecdotes about residents (including an eight-year old dog) who claim PG&E-related ailments:


From 1996 to 2008, 196 cancers were identified among residents of the census tract that includes Hinkley — a slightly lower number than the 224 cancers that would have been expected given its demographic characteristics, said epidemiologist John Morgan, who conducted the California Cancer Registry survey.

The survey did not attempt to explain why any individual in Hinkley contracted cancer, nor did it diminish the importance of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. cleaning up a plume of groundwater with elevated levels of chromium 6, Morgan said.

"In this preliminary assessment we only looked at cancer outcomes, not specific types of cancer," Morgan said. "However, we did look at a dozen cancer types in earlier surveys of the same census tract for the years between 1988 and 1998. Overall, the results of those surveys were almost identical to the new findings, and none of the cancers represented a statistical excess."


The LAT calls the rate of cancers in Hinkley "fewer...than expected." That depends on who was doing the expectin'. Back in 2000, when the movie came out, Walter Olson wrote in Reason that the Hinkley cancer cluster did not seem to be materializing and gave a thumbs down to the performances of the actual (rather than the Hollywood) Brockovich and her boss, Thousand Oaks personal injury lawyer Edward Masry.

Coincidentally, Brockovich is now back in Hinkley, pursuing claims about a return of the chromium plume.

[boutons_deux]

ah, the good old tort-reform canard. quack quack.

that duck doesn't migrate, spends the whole year in SpursTalk.

conservatives will dream up anything to enrich the richies and fuck over the citizens.

"not allow people to sue over any little thing gone wrong."

do they now? did they ever? How does that get past the judges? Every plaint is accepted, none dismissed as groundless?

Are medical malpractice suits a primary cause of the US $3T ripoff sick-care scam?

or is this just another Welfare-Queen scare-mongering to slime EVERY plaintiff as an insurance cheater?

the US medical system kills 90K people EVERY YEAR with AVOIDABLE medical errors.

And let's not get started how many people are killed or maimed with FDA-approved crap from BigPharma.

[boutons_deux]

On a somewhat related note:


http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/13/erin-brockovich-town-shows-no


"Erin Brockovich" Town Shows No Cancer Cluster

Maybe the people got spooked and stopped drinking the tap water these last 10 years?

Tainted PG&E groundwater plume again threatens residents of Hinkley, Calif.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hinkley-chromium-20101115,0,4878497.story

DarrinS, would drink that corporate shit? give it to your kids?

[George Gervin's Afro]

On a somewhat related note:


http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/13/erin-brockovich-town-shows-no


"Erin Brockovich" Town Shows No Cancer Cluster

I loved the movie!

[RandomGuy]

So should a patient be able to sue under a [worst] case scenario, if there is no evidence the medical staff did anything wrong?

Able to sue? Yes.

Able to win, without it being summarily dimissed? Let a judge decide.

Thing is that if it is obvious that no one did anything wrong, and proper procedures were followed, such cases don't go anywhere.

The vast majority of such litigation never sees a jury. You do know that right?

[Wild Cobra]

Able to sue? Yes.

Able to win, without it being summarily dimissed? Let a judge decide.

Thing is that if it is obvious that no one did anything wrong, and proper procedures were followed, such cases don't go anywhere.

The vast majority of such litigation never sees a jury. You do know that right?
Yet it happens anyway.

[Blake]

I think we can all acknowledge that almost any medical procedure involves risk.

I thought the risk involved in any medical procedure is directly proportional to the color of the doctor/surgeon's skin?

I could be wrong.....

[Wild Cobra]

I thought the risk involved in any medical procedure is directly proportional to the color of the doctor/surgeon's skin?

I could be wrong.....
LOL..

You are wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

I thought the risk involved in any medical procedure is directly proportional to the color of the doctor/surgeon's skin?

I could be wrong.....

No shit. When Holbrooke told that Pakistani Doctor to stop the war in Afghanistan he probably shouldn't have had to tell him to fix his heart first...

[Winehole23]

We're still waiting for the cost to patients to go down in Texas.

[Wild Cobra]

We're still waiting for the cost to patients to go down in Texas.
It aint happening for some time. It's more than just tort reform anyway. Besides, anyone ever agree that the Texas fix was the right one?

[CosmicCowboy]

We're still waiting for the cost to patients to go down in Texas.

It's the old "jobs created or saved" argument.

We can claim that prices would have gone up more without tort reform and you can't prove us wrong :lol.

[Winehole23]

What pathetic bullshit, CC. You don't even believe that.





Previously posted, topical:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137053&highlight=malpractice+tort&page=4

[boutons_deux]

We're still waiting for the cost to patients to go down in Texas.

That was never the objective.

Tort reform objectives were to reduce insurance companies' liability, and doctors' premiums, increasing everbody's bottom line while continuing to ripoff the patients with ever-increasing charges.

Somebody reduce citizens' costs? The entire sick-care game is to suck ever more money out of the patients.

[Winehole23]

I don't make that claim, CC. I thought (and still think) the costs of doing nothing were preferable to the incredibly shitty deal we got. On health care and the financial bailout both.

And it's pretty much undisputable that the benefit of tort reform to the TX health care consumer has been well nigh unmeasurable.

The benefit to doctors is considerable, though. Insurance costs for doctors are down (roughly) 25% since 2003. There are more doctors in TX, so that's a plus. But the hype of malpractice awards as a cost driver of health care per se, has been monumentally exaggerated. This thread continues that tradition.

[Winehole23]

Also related:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134026&highlight=tort+reform

Donations to 2008 Presidential candidates by health care industry:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133333&highlight=tort+reform

More doctors in Texas since caps were instituted:


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78930&highlight=tort+reform

[CosmicCowboy]

What pathetic bullshit, CC. You don't even believe that.





Previously posted, topical:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137053&highlight=malpractice+tort&page=4

Aw c'mon WH...I just love using that "Jobs Created or Saved" comparison.

That was some funny shit.

RLB3YqY1pgA

[Wild Cobra]

Aw c'mon WH...I just love using that "Jobs Created or Saved" comparison.

That was some funny shit.

RLB3YqY1pgA
It was, and you're right. How can someone really know with being able to see into an alternate universe where they took the other course of action.

[FromWayDowntown]

You don't need a law to prohibit claims that have no evidence to support them. You have to have judges who are willing to enforce existing rules and laws (at least in the majority of American jurisdictions), which permit the imposition of sanctions (including the costs incurred by the defendant) upon those who bring frivolous suits.

Besides, I'm not sure exactly how the supposed lack of any evidence that the hospital did anything wrong can be determined before a lawsuit is filed. Are we going to have pre-suit screening committees that investigate the facts to assess whether there are any facts? Are we going to make the claimant go through an EEOC type approval process before filing a lawsuit?

The ultimate truth is that in 99.9% of instances, the person who brings a claim actually does so because he or she believes that there is at least some evidence of wrongdoing by the alleged tortfeasor.

The civil justice system employs mechanisms like summary judgments to ferret out whether there are facts to support the claims or not, or whether the facts that do exist are sufficient to allow the imposition of liability.

The idea of a law that somehow will prohibits the filing suits that have no basis in fact is silly because it ultimately depends upon a degree of objective pre-suit screening from people (those who do file frivolous suits) who are decidedly not objective about those facts.

[Winehole23]

The whole idea of hard, arbitrary caps for medical malpractice leading to catastrophic/terminal results seems fundamentally inequitable and perverse to me.

[boutons_deux]

"hard, arbitrary caps for medical malpractice"

Perverse? You want perverse? how about Alan Simpson's "hard, arbitrary" cap for the percentage of GDP by govt spending.

[Wild Cobra]

The whole idea of hard, arbitrary caps for medical malpractice leading to catastrophic/terminal results seems fundamentally inequitable and perverse to me.
I agree, caps are ridiculous as to where people set them to. If someone is truly harmed and deserves compensation, how can a limit be placed on proper compensation?

That is what fails with tort reform in Texas, if i recall how it's done.

[Winehole23]

That is what fails with tort reform in Texas, if i recall how it's done.That's one of the problems. Limiting the award arbitrarily limits the feasibility of suing in the first place, in addition to denying equitable compensation to the most grievously injured.

[Winehole23]

Maybe there are other remedies in TX for a person like that. I don't really know.

[boutons_deux]

"the feasibility of suing in the first place"

lawyers won't spend their expensive time for 30% contingency of $250K, slamming the courthouse door on plaintiffs.

America's a great place, if you have enough money.

Speaking of dogshit, capitalists are lending lawyers money to finance litigation costs, in return for a slice of the winnings. The lawyers are passing the interest charges to the plaintiffs.

[fyatuk]

So what exaclty has tort reform done in TX?

Greatly slowed the rise in medical liability insurance, brought medical liability insurance companies in the state (we were down to 2, IIRC), and increased the number of doctors operating in the state (we had a HUGE shortage back then).

Aka, most of what it was expected to.

It was expected to have a slight effect on personal and group medical insurance rates, as well as base patient costs, and didn't, but that would have been a secondary effect.

[boutons_deux]

"most of what it was expected to"

iow, NONE of the objectives were to the benefit of patients, only to the increased profits (aka, patients' payments) of the heavily lobbying sick-care industry.

[fyatuk]

"most of what it was expected to"

iow, NONE of the objectives were to the benefit of patients, only to the increased profits (aka, patients' payments) of the heavily lobbying sick-care industry.

If you don't see a patient benefit in pretty significantly increasing the number of doctors working in the state, I can't help you.

But yes, the goal was not to help the patients in terms of their costs. It was a side effect they were hopeful about, but it wasn't a goal.

Still think the best thing any government could do would be to allow perpetual tax free HSA/Flex accounts that include employer contributions, and requiring employers who offer insurance with employer payment portion to pay to whatever policy the employee wants.

[boutons_deux]

I don't need your help, but I deeply, sincerely appreciate your generously condescending offer.

More TX doctors only helps patients if those doctors were in primary care and/or in rural areas or in taxpayer funded sick-care. My guess is that close to none of them were.

The nationwide sick-care crisis is in medical services in sparse rural areas and in primary doctors everywhere (primary care doctors make many $10Ks less than specialists. sick-care is all about money, esp paying off $100K+ in college/med school loans), not about caring for the sick.

[fyatuk]

I don't need your help, but I deeply, sincerely appreciate your generously condescending offer.

Considering you're usually a partisan hack who spends more time coming up with semi-clever nicknames than actually wanting to discuss both sides of an issue, I have no problem with being condescending to you :p


More TX doctors only helps patients if those doctors were in primary care and/or in rural areas or in taxpayer funded sick-care. My guess is that close to none of them were.

The nationwide sick-care crisis is in medical services in sparse rural areas and in primary doctors everywhere (primary care doctors make many $10Ks less than specialists. sick-care is all about money, esp paying off $100K+ in college/med school loans), not about caring for the sick.

Actually, a LOT of the gains were in rural areas, etc. Since tort reform at least 18 rural counties have picked up their FIRST emergency services doctor, and rural obstetrics, etc, have all had amazing gains. Also TX is the only state in which the number primary care physicians is increasing at a faster rate than population.

You really should do a little research on it's effects on the medical industry instead of just spouting out how it was a prop to the greedy capitalist medical industry. Tort reform did a LOT of good.

It was just a step on the path of fixing TX's massively broken medical care system, though. The State needs to address the cost of care, and the regulation of the medical insurance field, but unfortunately doesn't have the balls for it.

[boutons_deux]

"address the cost of care"

but if TX, or anybody in USA, gets the exorbitant, ripoff medical equipment, hospital, drugs, doctors costs down...

oops, there is no "if".

It will never happen. The sick-care industry is one of the many owners and operators of govt at all levels.

Americans getting bled for medical costs at twice the rate of "socialistic" national health care in other advanced countries is a key component of the oligarchy screwing America.

Show me some of your research and facts where TX tort reform had significant, or any, impact on facilitating sick care in rural TX.

[TeyshaBlue]

"address the cost of care"

but if TX, or anybody in USA, gets the exorbitant, ripoff medical equipment, hospital, drugs, doctors costs down...

oops, there is no "if".

It will never happen. The sick-care industry is one of the many owners and operators of govt at all levels.

Americans getting bled for medical costs at twice the rate of "socialistic" national health care in other advanced countries is a key component of the oligarchy screwing America.

Show me some of your research and facts where TX tort reform had significant, or any, impact on facilitating sick care in rural TX.

lol @ the bot demanding cites.

[fyatuk]

"address the cost of care"

but if TX, or anybody in USA, gets the exorbitant, ripoff medical equipment, hospital, drugs, doctors costs down...

oops, there is no "if".

Not disagreeing with that. Republicans gave a handout to big pharma with the medicare prescription BS, and Democrats are giving medical insurance a handout with this past "reform" BS. Neither side is trustworthy to actually try and fix it.

Which is why I'll never understand why people want the government more involved in it.


Show me some of your research and facts where TX tort reform had significant, or any, impact on facilitating sick care in rural TX.

Dude. Go check out the Texas medical boards websites or any number of patient care advocate sites centered around Tx. In like 5 minutes earlier I found about 5 or 6 different websites I'd consider at least remotely reliable and fair with data on it.

I know you have a real mind, you should it every once in a while....

[FromWayDowntown]

The med mal tort reform has done away with suits against doctors; for all intents and purposes, doctors have a practical immunity from negligence claims because, as noted above, the costs of prosecuting a suit are way too high -- given the incredible amounts of expert testimony that is required and given the prohibitively time-consuming special appellate processes that are available now in med mal actions -- for individuals to bear and the potential recovery is way too low to make those suits economically feasible for law firms.

It's a brilliant tactic if you make a policy choice that favoring business is better for the State than affording achievable legal remedies to those who are actually injured -- an end that tort reform definitely seems to be promoting.

[boutons_deux]

"costs of prosecuting a suit are way too high"

new investor angle:

wealthy capitalists looking for high returns, 15%+, are financing malpractice suits for a cut of the payout, with the financed lawyers taking their interest charges out of the plaintiff's cut.

Investors Funding Medical Malpractice, Divorce Lawsuits

Total investments in lawsuits at any given time now exceed $1 billion, several industry participants estimated. Although no figures are available on lawsuits supported by lenders, public records from one state, New York, show that over the last decade, more than 250 law firms borrowed on pending cases, often repeatedly.

Such financing also drains money from plaintiffs. Interest rates on lawsuit loans generally exceed 15 percent a year, and most states allow lawyers that borrow to bill clients for the interest payments. The cost can exceed the benefits of winning. A woman injured in a 1995 car accident outside Philadelphia borrowed money for a suit, as did her lawyer. By the time she won $169,125 in 2003, the lenders were owed $221,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/investors-funding-medical-malpractice-divorce-lawsuits-_n_783477.html?view=print#

===========

"doctors have a practical immunity from negligence claims"

... coupled with states and professional associations hiding convicted nurses, doctors, etc who go to practice in another state.

[fyatuk]

I certainly wouldn't say tort reform is perfect (it definitely restricts recoverable losses more than I'd like, but I do think there should be caps unless the damage done is permanent).

I'm just saying that to say it has had NO good effects in a blatantly incorrect statement. It corrected a rather dangerous shortage of both medical liability insurance companies and doctors of all persuasions. The state had to take some action, they just made it a little to strict due to the business friendly nature of TX politics.

[FromWayDowntown]

Is there some empirical formula for quantifying how much anguish a person endures?

Is every person's physical pain and suffering the same?

I think the delicious irony of tort reform lies in the paternalistic view of legislation that it accepts. Those who most frequently trumpet tort reform (a curb on market forces and a very hands-on governmental activity) are the biggest promoters of free markets and limited government involvement outside of the courtroom.

I don't personally have any problem with anyone trying to make as much money as he or she possibly can; I do have a problem with saying that the pursuit of those profits is so much more important than anything else that we're willing to artificially cap the remedies available to those who might be harmed by the pursuit of profits.

[boutons_deux]

This is America, Profoundly Secularistic and Materialistic, even the "Christians".

Making Money Is The Only Thing.

Ethics, Morality, Laws Be Damned.

Everything Else Is Secondary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkOmcIl79s

[fyatuk]

I think the delicious irony of tort reform lies in the paternalistic view of legislation that it accepts. Those who most frequently trumpet tort reform (a curb on market forces and a very hands-on governmental activity) are the biggest promoters of free markets and limited government involvement outside of the courtroom.

Yeah, that is kind of weird. But the world is made of weird things.


I don't personally have any problem with anyone trying to make as much money as he or she possibly can; I do have a problem with saying that the pursuit of those profits is so much more important than anything else that we're willing to artificially cap the remedies available to those who might be harmed by the pursuit of profits.

Arguing against caps on a moralistic grounds is perfectly fine with me. The whole idea of caps is morality vs practicality. In an ideal world caps wouldn't be necessary because people would only sue when it's deserved and would only be awarded appropriate awards. Unfortunately that's not the case in any sector of civil suits in this country.

As a result, TX was pushed to the brink of a collapse of the entire medical care field. We lost insurance companies. We lost doctors. We lost nurses. Practiciality dictated we do something to limit their exposure or risk not having medical care for pretty much anyone.

In a society who's motto is pretty much "Forget what I deserve, gimme what I want," it's hard to rely on moralism.

[Winehole23]

As a result, TX was pushed to the brink of a collapse of the entire medical care field.Can you substantiate this at all, or was it offered more in the nature of a private opinion? Just curious.

I heard things were pretty bad, but I had no idea TX's whole health care system was teetering on the brink of collapse, pre-tort reform.

[boutons_deux]

"TX was pushed to the brink of a collapse of the entire medical care field."

scare-mongering bullshit.

so you believe the lies of the insurance companies and docs and their Repug hit men.

[fyatuk]

Can you substantiate this at all, or was it offered more in the nature of a private opinion? Just curious.

I heard things were pretty bad, but I had no idea TX's whole health care system was teetering on the brink of collapse, pre-tort reform.

"brink of collapse" was an intentional overstatement, but it was in bad shape. We almost certainly would have been down to a single medical liability insurance company within a couple years (we were down to 2, and one was reducing the number of policies they were issuing in Texas), and we were losing medical personnel while maintaining one of the fastest growing populations.

It was not a good combination.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If you don't see a patient benefit in pretty significantly increasing the number of doctors working in the state, I can't help you.

But yes, the goal was not to help the patients in terms of their costs. It was a side effect they were hopeful about, but it wasn't a goal.

Still think the best thing any government could do would be to allow perpetual tax free HSA/Flex accounts that include employer contributions, and requiring employers who offer insurance with employer payment portion to pay to whatever policy the employee wants.

There is a benefit in that sense but when it was sold to the public it was based on the premise that premiums and costs would go down it was a lie. The evil trial lawyers were supposedly the reason why insurance was so high (translating into higher costs for citizens) and tort reform was a cure those greedy bastards.


So I do agree that having more doctors available is good thing the however the numbered of unisnured has risen since. Now we have more people who can't afford to see more doctors.

Those who championed the need for tor reform lied about the benefits.

[fyatuk]

There is a benefit in that sense but when it was sold to the public it was based on the premise that premiums and costs would go down it was a lie. The evil trial lawyers were supposedly the reason why insurance was so high (translating into higher costs for citizens) and tort reform was a cure those greedy bastards.


So I do agree that having more doctors available is good thing the however the numbered of unisnured has risen since. Now we have more people who can't afford to see more doctors.

Those who championed the need for tor reform lied about the benefits.

Well, championing something based on a secondary benefit is always a stupid idea. Most of the industry people (health care, insurance, etc) expected there'd be little to no monetary benefit to end consumers. But you could easily make a valid argument that it should have (lower costs to doctors + greater supply of doctors should reduce base cost, lower base cost means lower insurance payouts which should reduce premiums), but there was never going to be a massive effect.

It did, however, slow the growth of costs charged to consumers, but not by a serious account.

Of course, I don't remember anyone championing tort reform as a way to reduce consumer costs, but back then I wasn't paying too much attention to the news and most of what I saw on tort reform was from industry papers.

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course, I don't remember anyone championing tort reform as a way to reduce consumer costs, but back then I wasn't paying too much attention to the news and most of what I saw on tort reform was from industry papers.

That's the frequent rationalization for selling tort reform to the masses -- few policy initiatives aren't sold as fostering direct economic benefit to the public, and tort reform is decidedly among those. In the specific context of tort reform, that benefit is decidedly overplayed (I think).

The end result of tort reform is mostly that those whose interests it best serves see bottom line increases that stay with them -- they make more money through the grant of practical immunity than they would have if faced with the possibility of actually being made to pay for their wrongs. In this sense, I'd dispute that capping damages or limiting liability is a "moralistic" policy choice in any sense; it's almost exclusively about protecting the profits of the wealthy and encouraging profit seeking by doing away with external impediments to profit making.

It's also rather obvious, I think, that many of those who champion tort reform would prefer to see the civil justice system eradicated altogether. I was recently at a luncheon where a judicial officer of the state of Texas spoke openly about a belief that the State would be a better place if there was no personal injury litigation. That's a pretty scary thought.