3 ms·

Medical tort costs in 2007 were 30 billion and have been increasing at about 5% a year for the last 10 years (http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc

by jbooth 16y ago

Medical tort costs in 2007 were 30 billion and have been increasing at about 5% a year for the last 10 years (http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=USA/2008/200811/2008_tort_costs_trends.pdf http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=USA/2008/...) Meanwhile, medical costs are more on the order of 2 trillion and have been increasing by over 15 % a year for the last 10 years. I don't think liability is really the main cost driver here. I'd look at profits first. $2k to do a sleep study? How much work could that possibly be? And then they insist on another one? Not to mention the whole PCP -> specialist -> other specialist to get a frickin piece of plastic. Everyone got a piece there.

orangecat 16y ago
The question is how much unnecessary expense is incurred trying to avoid legal liability.
- jbooth 16y ago
  The laws haven't changed over the last few years, yet the cost of healthcare has increased way more than the total in tort settlements. Even though reimbursement of healthcare costs is a big part of those settlements. Given those figures, I'd guess that "avoiding liability" is a convienent excuse for running up the bill in many cases. If the laws aren't changing, and the amount of settlements awarded is actually decreasing relative to the cost of care, why is care going up so fast? Why spend more money avoiding liability this year than last year, if the odds of being sued have actually gone down? Of course, expenses incurred doing better medicine and not screwing up as opposed to reducing liability are probably a good idea.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I don't recall claiming torts were the cause of all medical inflation. I claimed torts were the cause of Daniel Markham being shuffled from sleep study to sleep study and of him not being allowed to hack his own medical device. Also, your argument is specious since it completely ignores the cost of unnecessary medicine performed in order to ward off lawsuits. For example, a lawsuit fearing doctor might order unnecessary tests and procedures with little medical benefit but, but which the doctor can point to in court and say "look, I did the best I could".
- jbooth 16y ago
  You claimed torts were the cause -- I'm claiming they're the excuse, and the $2k bill is the cause. $2k in guaranteed cash is a stronger incentive than the very remote chance of a lawsuit over sleep apnea. Even if the latter does exist in some small number and can be blamed.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    1) The pulmonary specialist who ordered the sleep study does not get $2k, the sleep study guy does. Why would the pulmonary specialist care about enriching the sleep study guys? 2) Humans respond disproportionately to low probability, high cost events. Witness the reaction to "XXX causes cancer", the DC sniper, 9/11, or similar rare events. So yeah, I'd say fear of lawsuits is a better explanation than the desire to make somebody else $2000 richer.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Go read that Times magazine article about the most expensive town in America for health care. Average health in the town, nothing special about it except the fact that they bill twice as much. They're sending each other referrals like crazy. It's in Texas, so I'm guessing their medical malpractice costs are not above average.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      The pulmonary specialist who ordered the sleep study does not get $2k, the sleep study guy does. Why would the pulmonary specialist care about enriching the sleep study guys? So, you're 100% certain that the pulmonary specialist is not an owner or an investor at the sleep study facility? In reality, it is quite common for doctors to own or invest in facilities to which they refer their own patients.
flogic 16y ago
I think the problem is systemic. If you look at any one part of the system, you wind up saying "that's out of whack but it's only a small percentage." The problem seems to be that those small percentages are compounded.

by jbooth 16y ago

orangecat 16y ago

The question is how much unnecessary expense is incurred trying to avoid legal liability.

jbooth 16y ago
The laws haven't changed over the last few years, yet the cost of healthcare has increased way more than the total in tort settlements. Even though reimbursement of healthcare costs is a big part of those settlements. Given those figures, I'd guess that "avoiding liability" is a convienent excuse for running up the bill in many cases. If the laws aren't changing, and the amount of settlements awarded is actually decreasing relative to the cost of care, why is care going up so fast? Why spend more money avoiding liability this year than last year, if the odds of being sued have actually gone down? Of course, expenses incurred doing better medicine and not screwing up as opposed to reducing liability are probably a good idea.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I don't recall claiming torts were the cause of all medical inflation. I claimed torts were the cause of Daniel Markham being shuffled from sleep study to sleep study and of him not being allowed to hack his own medical device. Also, your argument is specious since it completely ignores the cost of unnecessary medicine performed in order to ward off lawsuits. For example, a lawsuit fearing doctor might order unnecessary tests and procedures with little medical benefit but, but which the doctor can point to in court and say "look, I did the best I could".

jbooth 16y ago
You claimed torts were the cause -- I'm claiming they're the excuse, and the $2k bill is the cause. $2k in guaranteed cash is a stronger incentive than the very remote chance of a lawsuit over sleep apnea. Even if the latter does exist in some small number and can be blamed.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  1) The pulmonary specialist who ordered the sleep study does not get $2k, the sleep study guy does. Why would the pulmonary specialist care about enriching the sleep study guys? 2) Humans respond disproportionately to low probability, high cost events. Witness the reaction to "XXX causes cancer", the DC sniper, 9/11, or similar rare events. So yeah, I'd say fear of lawsuits is a better explanation than the desire to make somebody else $2000 richer.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Go read that Times magazine article about the most expensive town in America for health care. Average health in the town, nothing special about it except the fact that they bill twice as much. They're sending each other referrals like crazy. It's in Texas, so I'm guessing their medical malpractice costs are not above average.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    The pulmonary specialist who ordered the sleep study does not get $2k, the sleep study guy does. Why would the pulmonary specialist care about enriching the sleep study guys? So, you're 100% certain that the pulmonary specialist is not an owner or an investor at the sleep study facility? In reality, it is quite common for doctors to own or invest in facilities to which they refer their own patients.

flogic 16y ago

I think the problem is systemic. If you look at any one part of the system, you wind up saying "that's out of whack but it's only a small percentage." The problem seems to be that those small percentages are compounded.