Texas Study Casts Doubt on Need for Tort Reform

[merwin]

Texas Study Casts Doubt on Need for Tort Reform

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A study released on Thursday cast doubt on whether recent "tort reform" in Texas that limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits and is similar to what President Bush (news - web sites) wants nationally was really needed.

The study looked at Texas Department of Insurance records dating back to 1988 and found claims that medical costs were soaring because of too many malpractice lawsuits, the supposed reason for the reform, were not true.

"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states," said the study, conducted by law professors at the University of Texas, University of Illinois and Columbia University law schools.


Only a few states have comprehensive insurance databases like that of Texas, said David Hyman, one of the study authors, but similar studies elsewhere have found nothing to indicate a link between litigation and rising medical costs.

[Nite Owl]

1. He's never let something like

facts stand in his way before though so they will still keep pushing the lies.

[lovuian]

2. Well it has to be those greedy lawyers who are driving up

medical costs!!!

when its equipment and pharmaceuticals!!!

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Never was about malpractice claims or defensive medicine

It was always was about the insurance companies' portfolios.

The insurance company casualty insurance business model is to collect premiums, invest the premiums, and fight like the devil when they have to pay a casualty claim.

And then run to government for a bail out.

---Flood insurance

---Florida and Southeastern US Hurricane Insurance.

---Earthquake insurance.

---Medical malpractice insurance

---Airline liability and "hull insurance" for "war risks"

--- Nuclear power plants.

Now they are quietly lobbying both parties for "catastrophic illness re-insurance" where they get reimbursed by the government for big ticket claims.

We need "insurance reform" not "tort reform."

[seventythree]

8. 100% CORRECT!!!!

[lyonn]

4. Since statistics are hard to find on this issue

This report is very important. My husband is a suburban atty. that a few times in his career represented a patient who was injured due to what they felt was extreme negligence by their medical provider. Not long ago my husband and his fellow atty. went to a neighboring town to take depositions in a med. mal. case. My husband drove while the defense firm, representing the medical providers, used a Lear Jet along with several investigative type people. Trust me, the defense firms have all the $$ in the world to defend while many small law firm must watch their cost. It is easy to spend $50,000. on just about any malpractice case. Usually much more. The defense has all the hired guns, meaning doctors to testify for the doctor. Not so if you are suing a Dr. or hosp. The medical profession should police themselves and that should help with this problem. But I feel the insurance companies are ripping the Drs. off, along with the rest of us with their questionable statistics. The poor doctors are running scared when they treat a patient and often over treat because of this. We all suffer. We need more legislation covering the actions of all corps. Never happen in this administration. We will get more government controlled corporate legislation instead of "less govt." as they use as their mantra.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Well duhhhh. Only total morans could think cutting court payouts would

mean the INSURANCE COMPANIES would reduce their own bottom lines and pass on any "savings" to their customers by lowering their insurance prices.

Why do rethugs always try to make us believe corporations are bleeding-heart businesses.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Because

1. They are Repugs.
2. They are paid by the Insurance Companies.
3. Like many false ideas - It is a matter of "faith"

[TahitiNut]

6. When the whore media use terms like "Need for Tort Reform" ...

... they participate in the creation of a myth, in merely making a reference to something that does not exist and has never been proven to exist! This overt propaganda, a pretense that the opposition has the burden of proving the negative (fallacious and impossible), is nothing but lying in print and broadcast.

Nowhere is there or has there ever been any level of proof that torts are anything but under-representative of the scope of actual and real harms done.

[seventythree]

9. I'm glad there is a study

but didn't the California experience teach anybody anything? Not from there, and only know what I read but I heard that they tried the caps, and malpractice premiums didn't go down until they started insurance regulation. Any one from Indiana? Your system of pre-litigation panels was unique -- is it still working? Any one from Wisconsin? That state is often pointed to as an example that caps work.