Obama/Democrats Bows to the Trial Bar…Again
February 23, 2010
President Obama has said he’s willing to work with Republicans on “a comprehensive package to deal with” medical liability reform. But according to news reports, the new package he unveiled yesterday contains not a peep about a reform that even the Congressional Budget Office estimates could cut health care costs by $54 billion.
Throughout the health care debate, the president has never been shy about trashing doctors he believes order up tonsillectomies so they can make more money. He’s also put health insurers in his sights, proposing to put Washington in charge of setting insurance rates. I guess crossing the powerful and generous trial bar ($781 billion in contributions to congressional Democrats since 1990, and yes, that’s billion with a “b”) is a bridge too far.
Illinois Supreme Court Turns Back Tort Reform
February 5, 2010
In a disappointing and tortured decision, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out limits on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases yesterday, overturning bipartisan legislation passed in 2005 that enjoyed broad public support. Ed Murnane, President of the Illinois Civil Justice League, blasted the court for “siding once again with the trial lawyers” over patients and doctors.
According to American Medical Association President James Rohack (who is quoted in today’s Chicago Tribune), when the Illinois Supreme Court overruled the state’s previous damage cap in 1997:
“Severe problems with patient access to care emerged as the unrestrained excesses of the state’s legal system forced Illinois physicians to limit services, retire early, or move to other states where liability premiums are more stable. Without a cap on noneconomic damages from 1997 to 2005, Chicago physicians saw their liability premiums increase an average of 10 to 12 percent each year. When the cap was reinstated in 2005, premiums for Chicago physicians stabilized and even began to shrink.”
This is the third time the Illinois high court has struck down medical liability limits, demonstrating that it “simply will not be bound by the duly enacted acts of the legislature when certain issues important to its lawyer constituency are at stake,” writes Walter Olson in a post at PointofLaw.com that picks apart the court’s legal analysis.
The Illinois court’s “lawless” decision (Olson) demonstrates beyond any doubt that the best tort reform is getting the right judges on the bench.
Congressional Research Arm Backs Up Tort Reform Savings
January 11, 2010
The Congressional Budget Office sparked a mini firestorm in Washington when it estimated that tort reform would save the federal government (and the taxpayers who fund it) $54 billion in lower health care costs. Trial Lawyers Inc. was aghast and the lawsuit industry’s lackeys on Capitol Hill shot off a letter to CBO questioning the findings. According to a piece in the Washington Examiner, CBO is not backing down. In a letter to Congressman Bruce Braley (a former trial lawyer), CBO concluded:
“After a careful evaluation of the research relevant to tort reform, along with discussions with members of the agency’s Panel of Health Advisors who have particular expertise in this topic, CBO concluded that the weight of empirical evidence now demonstrates a link between tort reform and the use of health care services.”
Translation: Tort reform cuts down on the practice of defensive medicine – including expensive tests doctors order just to avoid being sued. Unfortunately, CBO’s analysis seems to be having little impact on congressional majorites. As I’ve posted earlier, the House health care bill actually punishes states that have dealt effectively with the medical liability crisis.
New Poll: Public Supports Tort Reform by 2:1 Margin
December 3, 2009
57% of voters want to cap the amount of money that can be awarded in a medical liability suit, according to a new Rasmussen poll (hat tip, Robert Moon):
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide favor limiting the amount of money a jury can award a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 29% disagree and 14% are not sure.
Forty-seven percent (47%) believe that restricting jury awards for medical malpractice lawsuits will significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, and 25% are not sure.
Real Health Care Reform Must Include Tort Reform
December 1, 2009
Two excellent articles in the past few days continue to make the case that effective health care reform must include meaningful medical liability reform. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that as much as $54 billion could be saved over the next decade if Congress enacted legal reforms.
In an interview with LegalNewsLine, columnist Charles Krauthammer argues that without liability reforms the billions that could be saved are instead flushed away:
“Part is simply hemorrhaged into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of extravagantly rich malpractice lawyers such as John Edwards. The rest is wasted within the medical system in the millions of unnecessary tests, procedures and referrals undertaken solely to fend off lawsuits.”
As Krauthammer points out, instead of enacting serious reforms, the health care bill passed by the House “actually penalizes states that dare ‘limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.’”
An article by Jim Copeland of the Manhattan Institute uncovers the other trial lawyer goodies hidden in the House bill. It ain’t pretty. And the Senate bill? MIA when it comes to tackling runaway medical liability premiums - there are no legal reforms to be found, just a meaningless ”sense of the Senate” provision that medical liability is an issue.
As Copeland writes,
“The trial bar could hardly have designed better bills for protecting its interests.”
More On Health Care Bill Trial Lawyer Protections
November 12, 2009
Last week I called attention to the trial lawyer protections that were in the health care reform legislation the House was preparing to bring to the floor for a vote. Well, those provisions made it into the final bill that passed in the middle of the night last Saturday.
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page weighs in.
More Evidence of the Trial Bar’s Powerful Influence in Congress
November 2, 2009
Howard Dean has admitted that medical liability reform has been kept out of health care reform out of fear of angering the powerful trial bar. Apparently, this wasn’t enough payback for the legal titans, who funneled nearly $100 million to congressional Democrats in the last election cycle. Andrew Breitbart’s biggovernment.com uncovered the following provision, buried on pages 1,431-1,433 of the 1,900-page House bill:
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
So states that have effectively dealt with the medical liability crisis get punished, while states that have bowed to trial lawyer pressure get rewarded. Some reform.
Since Texas established reasonable limits on non-economic damages, rates for medical liability insurance have dropped by an average of 27% and over 14,000 doctors have either returned to the state or started practicing for the first time, according to Governor Rick Perry. Other states have had similar experiences. So will the Obama Administration – which has professed its support for reining in abusive lawsuits – side with patients and doctors or with trial lawyers?
A Starting Point on Medical Liability Reform
October 30, 2009
Mort Kondracke calls on Congress to move on medical liability reform in a Roll Call article today. He says a middle ground estimate of the costs of defensive medicine — where doctors perform unnecessary tests and procedures out of fear of being sued — comes in at around $100 billion a year or $1 trillion over 10 years.
Kondracke pushes an idea pioneered by legal reformer James Wootton which promotes “early settlement offers, mistake-prevention discussions, use of independent experts and comparability standards for damage awards.” Given the trial lawyer lobby’s pervasive influence in Congress and success at blocking real medical liability reform — such as reasonable limits on non-economic damages — the Wootton idea might be a good place to start. Writes Kondracke:
“Before Congress and the president complete the health care reform process this year, they need to take decisive action on the malpractice reform front - not kick it into the future with mere studies.”
Whether they actually do so will test whether Congress and the Obama Administration are serious about reining in health care costs by diverting the flow of $$$ from the trial bar back to patients and doctors, where it belongs.
Another Voice for Medical Liability Reform
October 27, 2009
Columnist Charles Krauthammer makes the case for making medical liability reform a key component of our health care overhaul in an interview published in Der Spiegel. In addition to being a Pulitzer Prize winner, Krauthammer is also an M.D., Harvard Medical School, class of 1975. Money graph:
SPIEGEL: How could Obama still win Republican support for healthcare reform?
Krauthammer: He should finally realize that we need to reform our insane malpractice system. The US is spending between $60 and $200 billion a year on protection against lawsuits. I used to be a doctor, I know how much is wasted on defensive medicine. Everybody I practiced with spends hours and enormous amounts of money on wasted tests, diagnostic and procedures — all to avoid lawsuits. The Democrats will not touch it. When Howard Dean was asked why, he said honestly and explicitly that Democrats don’t want to antagonize the trial lawyers who donate huge amounts of money to the Democrats.
Theater Of The Absurd
September 16, 2009
So President Obama wants some “demonstration projects” to test the already exhaustively-proven proposition that doctors engage in defensive medicine to protect themselves from always-hovering, endlessly-circling trial lawyers. The person in charge? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the former top lobbyist for the Kansas trial lawyers association! Both Stephen Hayes and Mary Katherine Ham of the Weekly Standard have posted on this. As Hayes puts it, no wonder Americans are cynical about ObamaCare.