I think it will be like the Gas Prices. . . will lower for a while then will sky rocket back up. I'd be seriously surprised if they go down and stay down Rocket River
They are not supposed to go down, necessarily, but they should stop going up at such a high rate. Basically, we are looking to control costs.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/medliab.htm#table6 Click on VI. STATES WITH REALISTIC LIMITS ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES ARE FARING BETTER
Don't hold your breath on prices dropping. Doctors aren't exactly the "pass on the savings" type. Of course, they're not the only party involved.
I am not a supporter of Prop 12. I think it is horrendously bad law, but be realistic. Doctors have been eating it recently. The amounts that health insurers will pay doctors for services has been steadily dropping while med mal premiums have been on the rise. Doctors have largely no say in what they get paid for their services. You might want to think about that before making that type of post.
If they do not .. . who does? If the Law suits are what cause the rise. . . now that their is a cap on the law suits. . . .why not a fall? or at least a leveling off? I thought the idea of the Prop was to stop the rising cost. . . . . If that was not the reason behind it . . .. what was? Rocket River
Originally posted by Rocket River If they do not .. . who does? If the Law suits are what cause the rise. . . now that their is a cap on the law suits. . . .why not a fall? or at least a leveling off? You're assuming market forces are at work re. physician costs. They're not. Medicare will benefit some since malpractice rates are one component of their reimbursement algorithm. But doctors often will increase volume to reach their revenue targets. This 'volume' game is restricted somewhat by Medicare, but the private market cannot exert the same controls (in part due to the anti-managed care environment). I expect most doctors will see the malpractice rate reduction as something that they're 'due', and will not be inclined to pass on the savings during contracting with networks. Hospitals will feel the same. I thought the idea of the Prop was to stop the rising cost. . . . . he he he...yeah. If that was not the reason behind it . . .. what was? 1. Increased profits for providers 2. Avoid excessive pressure on some specific specialties that could cause them to leave the State (not an issue in Texas as of yet)
If we are to believe all that was siad by the pro-prop 12 crowd, premimums will be spiraling down, out of control. I have more than once mention this here. Malpractice premiums correlate more to the stock market than they do to the judgements paid out. If the stock market takes another dip (likely with this wobbly recovery), expect premiums to spiral up yet again. It will interesting/humorous to hear what Perry et al have to say about this apparent contradiction. Carry on.
California tried this and it failed, then they regulated the Insurance agency, and wallah....it was fixed. DD
That's not what the US Departmetn of Health and Human Services said. And the General Accounting Office AND Joint Economic Committee agreed.
What exactly did the US Departmetn of Health and Human Services say? On what did the General Accounting Office andJoint Economic Committee agree?
That increases in insurance rates are due to high payoffs on legal claims. And "Losses on medical malpractice claims appear to be the primary driver of increased premium rates in the long term,' the report states. "
Testimony of Travis Plunkett, Legislative Director Consumer Federation of America, July 17, 2002 Conclusion: A lot is at stake in this debate. The 1999 report regarding medical errors by the Institute on Medicine (IOM) demonstrates that far too many Americans face the serious possibility of an injury, or even death, due to medical mistakes in the hospital. Using the IOM’s low estimate of 44,000 deaths per year, medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death in this country,ahead of breast cancer and AIDS. The IOM’s high-range estimate of 98,000 deaths a year would make medical errors the fifth leading cause of death, more than all accidental deaths.13 Of course, some medical errors are directly attributable to physician negligence and some are not, but the IOM report clearly demonstrates the serious implications of rolling back the legal rights of Americans who have been harmed or killed by malpractice. If Congress gets it wrong, the pain and suffering incurred by many families across the country will only increase.Before this Committee rushes through tort reform legislation, I urge you to get the facts. As the evidence I’ve presented you with today shows, insurers have only themselves to blame for the predicament they— and physicians and patients throughout the country— face. Key Points: Inflation-adjusted medical malpractice premiums have declined by one -third in the last decade. Medical malpractice as a percentage of national health care expenditures are a fraction of the cost of health care in this nation. Over the last decade, for every $100 of national health care costs in the United States, medical malpractice insurance cost 66 cents. In the latest year (2000) the cost is 56 cents, the second lowest rate of the decade. There is no “explosion” in the severity of medical malpractice claims. Medical malpractice insurance losses have risen very slowly. High payoffs on legal claims, indeed.
Declined by one-third in the last decade? "Premiums have increased rapidly over the past several years, particularly for doctors who practice internal medicine, general surgery, and obstetrics/gynecology (see Table 2 below). The average increases ranged from 12% to 18% in 2000, were about 10% in 2001, but accelerated rapidly in 2002. The most recent report revealed that rate increases are now averaging 20% and above" Maybe he should focus on the last few years. Inflation is nowhere close. No explosion in the "severity" of malpracice claims? "And payments made on claims are increasing. In Illinois, the average payment per paid claim increased from just under $129,000 in the period 1980-1984 to almost $500,000 in the period 1995-1999.67 Missouri reported similar increases--the average payment per defendant rose 38% between 1999 and 2001.68" The cost isn't much? "The medical litigation system attacks the wallet of every American. Money spent on malpractice premiums (and the litigation costs that largely determine those premiums) raises health care costs. A GAO study in 1994 estimated that malpractice premiums comprise 1% of total health care expenditures; given current spending, this amounts to $14 billion dollars.60 The litigation system also imposes large indirect costs on the health care system. Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients' risk but it also adds costs. A leading study estimates that reasonable limits on non-economic damages, such as California has had in effect for 25 years, can reduce health care costs by 5-9% without "substantial effects on mortality or medical complications."61 With national health care expenditures currently estimated to be $1.4 trillion, if this reform were adopted nationally, it would save $70-126 billion in health care costs per year. " Travis Plunkett indeed.
My point was that he was looking at a whole decade, when major price increases have happened the last few years. IF he is focusing on the whole decade, that can be misleading.
The litigation system also imposes large indirect costs on the health care system. Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients' risk but it also adds costs. A leading study estimates that reasonable limits on non-economic damages, such as California has had in effect for 25 years, can reduce health care costs by 5-9% without "substantial effects on mortality or medical complications."61 With national health care expenditures currently estimated to be $1.4 trillion, if this reform were adopted nationally, it would save $70-126 billion in health care costs per year. " CBO disagrees. From Medical Misdiagnosis: Challenging the Malpractice Claims of the Doctors' Lobby : The Congressional Budget Office has rejected the defensive medicine theory. CBO was asked to quantify the savings from reduced "defensive medicine" if Congress passed H.R. 4600. This bill, which passed the House in 2002, contained very stringent restrictions on a patient’s ability to recover damages. CBO declined, saying that any such "estimates are speculative in nature, relying, for the most part, on surveys of physicians' responses to hypothetical clinical situations, and clinical studies of the effectiveness of certain intensive treatments. Compounding the uncertainty about the magnitude of spending for defensive medicine, there is little empirical evidence on the effect of medical malpractice tort controls on spending for defensive medicine and, more generally, on overall health care spending. Using broader measures of spending, CBO’s initial analysis could find no statistically significant connection between malpractice tort limits and overall health care spending."
