3 ms·
Interesting points, but this still does not shed light on the effective insurance costs physicians pay (annually and over the life of a practice), in case a mal
by BryanBeshore 9y ago
Interesting points, but this still does not shed light on the effective insurance costs physicians pay (annually and over the life of a practice), in case a malpractice suit is brought against them.
- ceejayoz 9y agohttps://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/ https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tor... > Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice. > A. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail. Even at the 10-15% number, that's meaning the vast majority of costs still come from elsewhere.
- BryanBeshore 9y agoI'm referring to what are the out of pocket costs a physician pays in malpractice insurance -- the cost they pay, even if a lawsuit is not brought against them. Not the cost of actual malpractice lawsuits
- ceejayoz 9y agoAnd my quote states "malpractice insurance". > That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.
- germanier 9y agoIf there is at least a bit of competition in malpractice insurance "the out of pocket costs a physician pays in malpractice insurance -- the cost they pay, even if a lawsuit is not brought against them" and "the cost of actual malpractice lawsuits" should be fairly close on average.