3 ms·

That second link is interesting since it claims that the perception of malpractice risk is overestimated among physicians since doctors are sued a fair amount (

by c3534l 11y ago

That second link is interesting since it claims that the perception of malpractice risk is overestimated among physicians since doctors are sued a fair amount (leading to a high perception of risk), rarely do they ever actually lose a case (leading to low actual costs). I don't see where it says that malpractice caps have any substantial reduction in the prices of medical care. Further, your first link actually disputes your claim, not supports it. > Theoretically, states that have enacted special laws to reduce unreasonable litigation (expert witness reform, case certification requirements, and medical review panels) and curb excessive rewards (damage caps) should have the most favorable environments, with physicians paying the lowest annual premiums. However, this is not always the case. The relationships between tort reform, malpractice costs, and medical liability environment favorability are complex and nonlinear.

hardcandy 11y ago
Read the whole post (it's worth it). The part you quoted refers to states which have damage caps >$1m (versus Texas at $250k). The author writes about his own experience going from Illinois to Indiana and then Texas. My uncle was a surgeon in Texas pre and post tort reform and I saw first hand how much of a difference it made. It's anecdotal of course, but his malpractice dropped from $150k to $50k solely as a result of that law. He reaped the gains for a couple years and then reimbursements were lowered to compensate. Those lower reimbursements are used to calculate premium costs which then also benefited from the reduced med mal costs. The emergency physician correctly points out that med mal functions largely as a transfer of wealth from people with health insurance (which is now, in theory, everyone) to trial attorneys. Lastly I'd point out, again from my uncle's experience, that being sued is an extremely stressful experience even if the eventual financial outcome isn't very impactful. I couldn't relate to it until I went through the same experience myself.

by c3534l 11y ago

hardcandy 11y ago

Read the whole post (it's worth it). The part you quoted refers to states which have damage caps >$1m (versus Texas at $250k). The author writes about his own experience going from Illinois to Indiana and then Texas. My uncle was a surgeon in Texas pre and post tort reform and I saw first hand how much of a difference it made. It's anecdotal of course, but his malpractice dropped from $150k to $50k solely as a result of that law. He reaped the gains for a couple years and then reimbursements were lowered to compensate. Those lower reimbursements are used to calculate premium costs which then also benefited from the reduced med mal costs. The emergency physician correctly points out that med mal functions largely as a transfer of wealth from people with health insurance (which is now, in theory, everyone) to trial attorneys. Lastly I'd point out, again from my uncle's experience, that being sued is an extremely stressful experience even if the eventual financial outcome isn't very impactful. I couldn't relate to it until I went through the same experience myself.