He is focusing on cycles in the insurance business and not being short sighted by only concentrating on the last few years (the hard part of the cycle where premiums have gone up). IOW he is not cherry picking the data to make his political point.
Okay, so they don't like the defensive medicine theory. Fair enough. However the second point that that "CBO’s initial analysis could find no statistically significant connection between malpractice tort limits and overall health care spending" is now disputed by the CBO itself: "House-passed legislation (H.R. 5) placing federal caps on damages in health care lawsuits ultimately would reduce premiums for medical malpractice insurance by an average of 25 percent to 30 percent, the Congressional Budget Office said in newly released estimates. " http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/mac.nsf/0/0104a7d873fc376785256cf400795e9e?OpenDocument
Umm...yeah...REALLY. When Medicare reduces the payout for a procedure, the major insurance companies do it as well. It has been seen time and time again, especially when it involves a specialist. For the small practitioner, the choices are simple: 1. Accept it. 2. Leave the network. The insurance company holds all the cards. This inceasing patient load to hit target revenue you speak of is in direct response to the insurance problem I have outlined. ie: Your fixed costs are static or increasing. Your revenue per patient is declining. DO THE MATH!!!!
Well now that wasn't so polite, Refman. I was trying to be gracious and give you th opportunity to reword your statement, but so be it. FWIW, I happen to do the math. All of the time. Do you? What numbers do you have to back-up your claim 'The amounts that health insurers will pay doctors for services has been steadily dropping '. I'm most interested since you seem so certain of this...show me your math.
In Canada, there is a $271,000 cap on pain and suffering, and that is Canadian money, which is worth about .73 US Dollars. And the person doesn't get the first 30K of pain and suffering, so that wipes out all the pain and suffering recoveries except for really serious cases. No punitives. It hasn't killed medmal and it hasn't killed personal injury cases, but it has helped give certainty and therefore fascillated earlier and saner settlements. However, Canada also has other provisions, such as a much more aggressive manner of making parties properly evaluate their cases in settlement negotiations. Consumer costs will not go down. Insurance rates MIGHT go down to doctors, but the doctors, the hospitals and the insurers will pocket the savings. Prop 12 has zero impact on what I do, except that it might force a few cases other people have to settle and get them off the courts' dockets, freeing the courts up for other trials. But getting to trial early is not really a problem. Matters I work on take a long time to develop if you can't get them settled early on. Cases have moments where they are likely to settle, and if they don't settle the first 6 months, they probably won't settle for at least another year after the first 6 months. Canada also encourages early mediation, and I like that. It's smarter to bring in an outside voice of authority before all the parties start believing their own bullisht. You get a party who talks only to his lawyer for a year and half, and you've got someone who is detached from reality, living in an echo chamber. Mediators and judges are grim reminders that not everyone buys your storyline. The earlier a party finds that out, the sooner the case settles.
