Tort Reform Actually Increased Health Care Costs in Texas

[Capt Bringdown]

Report: Texas' tort law has failed to reduce health costs, attract doctors (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/report-texas-tort-law-has-failed-to-reduce-1910690.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage)


A national report released Wednesday says the 2003 Texas law that limited damage awards in malpractice suits has caused health care spending to rise and has not significantly increased the number of doctors in Texas.

The report claims that Medicare spending in Texas has risen faster than the national average, and so have private health insurance premiums. It also says that, contrary to Perry's claims, the per capita increase in the number of doctors practicing in the state has been much slower since the state passed the so-called tort reform law than it was before the law.

Regarding Medicare costs, the Public Citizen report says that proponents of lawsuit limits say that doctors would order fewer tests and practice less "defensive medicine" if they didn't have to fear as many lawsuits. "In fact," the report says, "Medicare diagnostic testing expenditures in Texas not only increased during this time frame (2003 to 2007), but rose 25.6 percent faster than the national average."

- more - (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/report-texas-tort-law-has-failed-to-reduce-1910690.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage)

[ChuckD]

The law was never enacted to do those things, propaganda notwithstanding. It was designed to line the pockets of the HC companies.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This part of the Texas miracle.... with the latest tort rform legislation if you don't accept the pre -trial settlement offer and you win the case you could still end up paying the attorney costs for the company you sue... the catch is that if you win less than the pre-settlement offer the plaintiff has to pay the losing team's attorney costs..hows that for a fucking sweetheatr deal?

[ElNono]

They didn't go far enough! Outlaw lawsuits!

[Winehole23]

I thought we established in a related thread that indeed there was a measurable benefit to doctors, that did not however get passed on to the consumer. Do you recall, ElNono?

(Anyway, it's easily checked...)

[Winehole23]

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/15/edsa0915.htm

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137053

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Did you expect any other conclusion from Public Citizen?

[boutons_deux]

Any study showing ANY reduction in TX health costs?

Any reduction in doctor's liability insurance premiums?

There was some influx in doctors I heard, but TX still ranks 42nd in docs per 100K population.

[ElNono]

I thought we established in a related thread that indeed there was a measurable benefit to doctors, that did not however get passed on to the consumer. Do you recall, ElNono?

(Anyway, it's easily checked...)

Don't recall the specifics, but in all honesty, isn't that expected? It's not like doctors have an incentive to pass the savings.

[boutons_deux]

"It's not like doctors have an incentive to pass the savings."

Every doctor will pocket the money saved on premiums, surely to compensate himself for feeling so screwed before tort reform.

[Winehole23]

:lmao

Did you expect any other conclusion from Public Citizen?Perhaps you have another source that says otherwise?

[coyotes_geek]

Pretty shoddy report IMO. There's a whole slew of factors that contribute to the end cost of healthcare, of which tort reform is just one. The report looks at what happened to the end cost, notes a change made to one single factor, ignores all the other factors and leaves it to the reader to just assume that the change in the end result is a direct result of the change made to the single factor.

A + B + C = D. We tinkered with A, we didn't like what happened with D. Let's ignore what may have happened with B & C and just conclude that the negative result of D is solely caused by what we did with A.

[Winehole23]

A + B + C = D. We tinkered with A, we didn't like what happened with D. Let's ignore what may have happened with B & C and just conclude that the negative result of D is solely caused by what we did with A.Pretty much.

[boutons_deux]

"contribute to the end cost of healthcare, of which tort reform is just one"

malpractice costs (insurance and payouts) are tiny part of the national health care bill, less the 2% maybe less the 1%,IIRC. And of course only minority of the payouts could be called excessive, or the suits called frivolous. iow, tort reform is just another right-wing lie about health care costs.

[ElNono]

Pretty shoddy report IMO. There's a whole slew of factors that contribute to the end cost of healthcare, of which tort reform is just one. The report looks at what happened to the end cost, notes a change made to one single factor, ignores all the other factors and leaves it to the reader to just assume that the change in the end result is a direct result of the change made to the single factor.

A + B + C = D. We tinkered with A, we didn't like what happened with D. Let's ignore what may have happened with B & C and just conclude that the negative result of D is solely caused by what we did with A.

If B and C were not modified, then how is it a bad conclusion?

[CosmicCowboy]

Speaking of frivolous lawsuits (off topic)

That SA cop that got hit and killed last year? His family is suing the driver whose car broke down that the cop stopped to help (along with others more directly involved like the drunk and the bar he was at)

WTF?

[Agloco]

Speaking of frivolous lawsuits (off topic)

That SA cop that got hit and killed last year? His family is suing the driver whose car broke down that the cop stopped to help (along with others more directly involved like the drunk and the bar he was at)

WTF?

Soooo if a cop stops to help me on the side of a road and they get hit, I can expect to be sued?

[101A]

Any study showing ANY reduction in TX health costs?

Any reduction in doctor's liability insurance premiums?

There was some influx in doctors I heard, but TX still ranks 42nd in docs per 100K population.

More docs per capita does not mean better health. There is no correlation (within the boarder of this country).

However, there is a correlation with number of people on maintenance drugs, more elective surgeries, doctor's visits and flu shots, and, of course, COST with having more doctors per capita.

Now, maybe the docs just live where the sick people are. Chicken or egg?

[boutons_deux]

It's pretty well accepted by serious observers that there has been an epidemic of diagnoses rather than an epidemic of disease.

(Not to take away from the real diseases Americans increasingly inflict on themselves by eating the Standard American Diet, S.A.D., food-like industrial substances flogged by BigFood and BigFarma)

BigPharma's DTC marketing suckers people into believing they need those drugs, and of course, docs prescribe drugs because that's a main source of revenue. Ever go to doc and NOT come out with a prescription?

USA also has 90% of the lawyers on the planet, and a lot of those lawyers go ambulance chasing (not literally) to drum up business for themselves. "see you in court" is American's True Prayer.

Another way USA is really fucked up is that there is a huge shortage of primary care docs (doctoring is a closed sect, limitng its supply to keep it way below demand), certainly not enough to care for current sickos, never mind the millions of sickos soon to be covered by health reform.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/15/edsa0915.htm

Good:

Texas physicians have witnessed a 25% overall drop in liability rates since 2003, the state insurance department says. For the first time, the state's largest medical liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, saw a 50% reduction in lawsuit filings, this from 2003 to 2008. Texas went from four insurers to more than 30 during that period.

Didn't really control or look at other variables, although it is fairly reasonable to conclude that premiums would drop, and that new entrants would enter the market, due to lower barriers to entry (lower provisions/ or more certainty for losses)

Bad:

According to the Texas Medical Board, medical license applications have soared from 2,561 to 4,041 -- a 58% jump. At the same time, the number of neurosurgeons has climbed 12%, while the supply of orthopedic surgeons has risen 9%.

Again no real examination as to whether this might have been due to something as simple as population growth, or the opening of a new medical school or two.

Not really all that compelling, IMO.

That said, I think tort reform is a fairly good thing, and should be tried, as long as unreasonable barriers to those genuinely harmed are not put up.

I just harbor no illusions that it is some magic bullet.

[Winehole23]

The importance of malpractice suits as a cost driver is over-hyped but not negligible.

[coyotes_geek]

If B and C were not modified, then how is it a bad conclusion?

As long as you've done your due diligence to look at B & C and can confirm they didn't change then it's not a bad conclusion. The report from the OP made no such attempt though.

[TeyshaBlue]

As long as you've done your due diligence to look at B & C and can confirm they didn't change then it's not a bad conclusion. The report from the OP made no such attempt though.

Exactly. :toast

I especially enjoyed the OP title Tort Reform Actually Increased Health Care Costs in Texas without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

[Capt Bringdown]

Exactly. :toast

I especially enjoyed the OP title Tort Reform Actually Increased Health Care Costs in Texas without any supporting evidence whatsoever.


I enjoyed your dismissal of the report and article without any supporting evidence as well.
As for the A+B+C=D canard, I guess that works for proponents of tort reform as well. Oh wait, they never said tort reform was THE high-priority reform necessary for reducing health care costs, right?

[ElNono]

As long as you've done your due diligence to look at B & C and can confirm they didn't change then it's not a bad conclusion. The report from the OP made no such attempt though.

If there were no other substantial changes, what is there to report?
AFAIK, tort reform in Texas was indeed the measure par-excelence to attack the raising costs in healthcare on the state.

If you're telling me there were other factors (B or C) that offset whatever savings, then that would still point at tort reform really not making a dent, and thus really not being the holy grail some make it out to be (hello Cobra).

[Capt Bringdown]

AFAIK, tort reform in Texas was indeed the measure par-excelence to attack the raising costs in healthcare on the state.


Not just Texas, anti-consumer tort reform as THE way to reduce health care costs has been conservative/libertarian holy writ for years.

Of course when it fails to produce what they've promised, it's because of other factors.

[coyotes_geek]

If there were no other substantial changes, what is there to report?
AFAIK, tort reform in Texas was indeed the measure par-excelence to attack the raising costs in healthcare on the state.

If you're telling me there were other factors (B or C) that offset whatever savings, then that would still point at tort reform really not making a dent, and thus really not being the holy grail some make it out to be (hello Cobra).

Have you read the report?

[TeyshaBlue]

I enjoyed your dismissal of the report and article without any supporting evidence as well.
As for the A+B+C=D canard, I guess that works for proponents of tort reform as well. Oh wait, they never said tort reform was THE high-priority reform necessary for reducing health care costs, right?

Umm....I'm not the droid you're looking for. I didnt float the unsupported OP. I have no burden of proof. *facepalm*

I do agree with the notion that tort reform is fairly insignificant in the overall scheme. Unfortunately, there's entirely too much crappy analysis being thrown around by either side of the issue. This piece appears to be no different.

[TeyshaBlue]

To distill the article: Healthcare costs increased in Tx. ZOMG...must be due to tort reform.

[CosmicCowboy]

Health care cost will continue to increase because health care just gets better and better. I'm currently dealing with an ankle issue (ruptured tendon on the inside of my ankle causing my arch to gradually collapse and my foot to roll out from under my leg) that really sucks. First step was an appointment to see the Doctors PA. The PA diagnoses and then sends me for an MRI. Then back to the doctor where we sit in front of a computer and look at my foot/ankle from a thousand different views/slices as he points out fucked up tendons, ligaments, fluid, etc. They can measure exactly how far out of normal my foot is in three dimensions and design a orthopedic support for my leg/ankle that goes inside my shoes (new, thin, computer designed high tech plastics) to hopefully give the the burst tendons time to heal and pull my foot ankle back together. If that doesn't work I can still have surgery and do a tendon replacement (with a 9 month recovery time :( ) Just 25 years ago they would have told me sorry, you're fucked Festus, and sent me home with a walking cane.

[boutons_deux]

tort reform is a conservative/Repug red herring, a total distraction from the real causes of care costs which are greedy docs, hospitals, insurers.

Conservatives are after tort reform as way attack trial/liability lawyers who are a real pain in the ass for the conservatives' UCA.

[coyotes_geek]

I do agree with the notion that tort reform is fairly insignificant in the overall scheme. Unfortunately, there's entirely too much crappy analysis being thrown around by either side of the issue. This piece appears to be no different.

Bingo. Tort reform supporters oversold the benefits that would be realized and now tort reform opponents are trying to oversell the negative effects of having done it.

[RandomGuy]

Bingo. Tort reform supporters oversold the benefits that would be realized and now tort reform opponents are trying to oversell the negative effects of having done it.

I agree. Don't forget: with supporters overselling the benefits realized as well, the AMA piece being a pretty explicit example of that.

[ElNono]

Have you read the report?

Nope, I read your simplified premise.

[Capt Bringdown]

Bingo. Tort reform supporters oversold the benefits that would be realized and now tort reform opponents are trying to oversell the negative effects of having done it.

One report vs all the forces supporting tort reform amounts to overselling?

The report offers some very pointed rebuttals to the claims of tort reformers.

Essentially the proponents insist on "other factors" when pressed on why their scheme isn't working as sold.
No mention of course of those other factors when they were selling the benefits of their magic bullet solution.

That's what happens when the industry gets to craft their own legislation. Consumers get screwed again.

[coyotes_geek]

One report vs all the forces supporting tort reform amounts to overselling?

The one report is most definitely overselling.


The report offers some very pointed rebuttals to the claims of tort reformers.

What the report doesn't offer is anything to back up the claim that tort reform increased healthcare costs.


Essentially the proponents insist on "other factors" when pressed on why their scheme isn't working as sold.
No mention of course of those other factors when they were selling the benefits of their magic bullet solution.

And now the authors of this report are not mentioning any other factors now that they're trying to sell the horrors of tort reform. Same coin, different side, neither side having much in the way of credibility.

[Capt Bringdown]

What the report doesn't offer is anything to back up the claim that tort reform increased healthcare costs.
So say you, but here's a link the actual report:
Health Care in Texas Has Worsened in Key Respects Since State Instituted Liability Caps in 2003 (http://www.citizen.org/documents/a-failed-experiment-report.pdf)
The report makes an argument based on their interpretation/analysis of the data presented from numerous sources. It all appears to me to be properly cited and footnoted. You may disagree with their conclusions, but to try represent the report as having not done "anything" to back up their claims is absurd and childishly argumentative.



And now the authors of this report are not mentioning any other factors now that they're trying to sell the horrors of tort reform. Same coin, different side, neither side having much in the way of credibility.

You haven't produced anything to back up these other factors that you claim to be so vital. The article which discusses the report does get to some responses by tort reform lobbyists. Based on the article, there appears to be a discussion underway, which is rather the way I suppose our system is supposed to work. Challenging the claims of government is a worthwhile effort I rather think.

The report offers a challenge from a consumer-advocacy perspective to the Government's central claim that tort reform will drive down costs. Holding the government accountable with a data-derived advocacy piece hardly seems to rate "selling the horrors of tort reform."

You haven't done anything to refute the report other than to misrepresent it and to cast aspersions on it's intentions.

[Winehole23]

You may disagree with their conclusions, but to try represent the report as having not done "anything" to back up their claims is absurd and childishly argumentative.Except he didn't. All he did was point out that the conclusion you jumped to is not supported by the linked source. That is true. All the paper shows is a correlation b/w tort reform and higher health care costs. Not causation.

You haven't done anything to refute the report other than to misrepresent it and to cast aspersions on it's intentions.CG cast aspersions on the fallacious conclusion expressed in your thread title, and justly.

[boutons_deux]

"health care just gets better and better"

health care costs increase "BECAUSE THEY CAN RAISE THE PRICE" since they know most people will pay to get fixed. but ...

National Health Care Scorecard: United States Scores 64 out of 100

The U.S. health care system scored 64 out of 100 on key measures of performance, according to the third national scorecard report from the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, released October 18. The scorecard finds that -- despite pockets of improvement -- the U.S as a whole failed to improve when compared to best performers in this country, and among other nations. The report also finds significant erosion in access to care and affordability of care, as health care costs rose far faster than family incomes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111018121836.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily% 3A+Latest+Science+News%29


Obesity Drags on the Economy

“Full-time workers in the U.S. who are overweight or obese and have other chronic health conditions miss an estimated 450 million additional days of work each year compared with healthy workers — resulting in an estimated cost of more than $153 billion in lost productivity annually.”

The obesity epidemic raises health care costs, which get passed along to insurance companies and the families of the obese. The loss of productivity pressures corporate profit margins, which are already pressed by a weak economy. Obesity is one of the few things damaging the economy that could be changed.

The obese are not expected to carry their own weight in terms of what they pay for insurance. They cost the system more, so they should pay more into insurance pools.

http://247wallst.com/2011/10/17/obesity-drags-on-the-economy/#ixzz1bEeTaUai

[Winehole23]

The thread title oversells the fallacy over every single post, yet you actually deigned to sit in judgment of the fairness and maturity of others.

Good show, profe! :lol

[Winehole23]

nothing lacking for brazenness & disdainful hauteur

[Winehole23]

got some brass bits there

[boutons_deux]

the key point is that tort reform won't solve national sick-care costs, as tort-reformed-TX's relentless rising sick-care bill proves beyond any doubt.

But proof and facts won't stop the conservative tort reform liars.

[Borat Sagyidev]

What a crock pot full of criminal if not extraordinarily unethical acts.

The only good Republican is a dead Republican.

[TeyshaBlue]

the key point is that tort reform won't solve national sick-care costs, as tort-reformed-TX's relentless rising sick-care bill proves beyond any doubt.

But proof and facts won't stop the conservative tort reform liars.

Lol...nobody in this thread is claiming tort reform will solve the cost problem. Don Quixote and all that....:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

What a crock pot full of criminal if not extraordinarily unethical acts.

The only good Republican is a dead Republican.




Switch to decaff, bro.

[Wild Cobra]

Switch to decaff, bro.
He's one of the few I still have on IGNORE.

[boutons_deux]

Lol...nobody in this thread is claiming tort reform will solve the cost problem. Don Quixote and all that....:lol

Tort reform is a favorite, hyped Repug/conservative bogus issue, just like voter fraud. They claim tort reform is extremely important and keep it alive in health care politics. GFY

[Capt Bringdown]

All he did was point out that the conclusion you jumped to is not supported by the linked source. That is true. All the paper shows is a correlation b/w tort reform and higher health care costs. Not causation.

Actually, the report makes an argument that tort reform has increased Health care costs, especially with regard to who benefits and who loses in the equation, and that is reflected in my title for this post. You may disagree with the conclusion of the report, but I have not misrepresented the gist of the report or come to any conclusions in the title of the post that the report does not argue.


Health care in Texas has become more expensive and less accessible since the state’s malpractice caps took effect.
The beneficiaries of the new system are the doctors who escape accountability for their errors and the liability insurance companies that reap a windfall of inflated premiums.

Regular Texans are the losers. They include not only the victims of medical malpractice who are deprived of the chance to recover damages but also the taxpayers who must foot the bill for the future medical costs of seriously injured patients. (And what's the cause of this cost burden being shifted onto taxpayers?)


In reference to the bolded passage above:

The state’s largest provider of medical liability insurance advertises that doctors’ premiums (including rebates) were 50.5 percent lower in 2010 than in 2003. But the malpractice payments that insurance companies are required to make have fallen far faster. This suggests that insurance companies have reaped a windfall from the liability caps because the amount they pay out has decreased considerably more rapidly than the amount they take in.

[Winehole23]

Verbiage. That you are swayed by it only shows how gullible you are. By unsupported, I meant empirical support, not inferences from common sense.

[Winehole23]

If insurance companies make a windfall in a time of declining premiums, that does not support the conclusion that health care costs are rising, and the bit about the future costs of seriously injured patients is neither quantified nor compared to any historical costs.