3 ms·

From my (limited) understanding, the high cost of malpractice insurance that doctors must pay is what drives up the cost of healthcare, more so than their stude

by gk1 8y ago

From my (limited) understanding, the high cost of malpractice insurance that doctors must pay is what drives up the cost of healthcare, more so than their student debt.

trhway 8y ago
>high cost of malpractice insurance results from high cost of malpractice. So instead of treating the symptom - insurance, one has to treat the original condition - malpractice. To continue the analogy - the trial lawyers in case of malpractice is just like the immune system. When infection (malpractice) happens you see the heavy effects of immune system acting like high fever, yet it would be a grave mistake to suppress immune system instead of dealing with the original cause - infection (malpractice).
- Bjartr 8y ago
  Malpractice suits are brought over 3x as often in the US as in Canada, and malpractice insurance can cost more than an order of magnitude more. However, in the US there is a much greater incentive to sue. About 21% of malpractice suits that pay out, pay out over $1,000,000. Something that elsewhere would merely net you enough to handle the medical fallout, in the US nets you a lottery jackpot. Because the money on the line is so high it incentives both layers and plaintiffs to aggressively maximize the payout. Like so many other aspects of the US health system, other countries do it better. * All claims were the results of a few minutes of research on Google, I would be interested in learning of evidence that contradicts my claims.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Sometimes things happen. There are commercials on TV all of the time where lawyers are soliciting people to sue doctors for birth defects like cerebral palsy. I’m glad that my parents spent my childhood focused on therapy, motivation, etc to help me deal with cerebral palsy than placing the blame on the doctor. Yeah my case is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.
karmajunkie 8y ago
This has been conclusive disproven by comparing what happened in different states that enacted tort reform for medical malpractice. The cost of insurance dropped a bit, but there has been no effect the cost of healthcare provisioning.
- briandear 8y ago
  I would argue that it hasn't been "conclusively" disproven. One key study "disproved" it in the aggregate across all insurance, but not on a specific specialty-by-specialty basis[1]. The malpractice costs of OB-GYN's for example are reflective of the potentially catastrophic tort liability exposure despite an overall low level of influence of tort reform on insurance costs generally. However, this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3536953/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3536953/ demonstrated that tort reform resulted in a larger percentage of growth in the number of physicians which would indicate that tort reform does have an important effect on medical care provisioning simply because tort reform, according to that study, resulted in a larger number of practitioners, which would, necessarily increase access to care. So while tort reform may not have reduced costs across all of insurance, it does have an effect on medical care supply and it could have an effect on costs on a specialty-by-specialty basis. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/ "An important consideration when interpreting our results is that our analysis provides evidence that the Texas reform had little influence on levels of health insurance losses, in the aggregate, across a variety of patient groups and provider specialties... As a result, if tort reform’s effects on provider behavior differ by the provider’s specialty type or the type of patient, then different analyses presented in the literature, utilizing different but relatively homogenous samples of provider or insured types, may yield conflicting results regarding the influence of malpractice exposure on healthcare cost and health insurance markets. Further research may consider how specific provider specialties and patient groups are influenced by changes in medical malpractice liability exposure."
  - karmajunkie 8y ago
    That doesn't demonstrate any conclusions whatsoever about costs. What it demonstrates, however tenuously [1], should surprise no one: physicians have a preference to practice in areas where the costs of their malpractice are minimized. The notion that it brings costs down by increasing supply is a central tenet of the tort reform movement. However, this hypothesis has not been borne out by the evidence [2]. Moreover, as someone who worked in public health in Texas during the post-tort-reform era, particularly with hospitals in rural Texas, I can tell you anecdotally that the supply of physicians available outside major metropolitan areas declined when tort reform activists predicted an increase in supply. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047433 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047433 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/
beat 8y ago
Be sure you're sorting out partisan political information in your studies.

by gk1 8y ago

From my (limited) understanding, the high cost of malpractice insurance that doctors must pay is what drives up the cost of healthcare, more so than their student debt.

trhway 8y ago

>high cost of malpractice insurance results from high cost of malpractice. So instead of treating the symptom - insurance, one has to treat the original condition - malpractice. To continue the analogy - the trial lawyers in case of malpractice is just like the immune system. When infection (malpractice) happens you see the heavy effects of immune system acting like high fever, yet it would be a grave mistake to suppress immune system instead of dealing with the original cause - infection (malpractice).

Bjartr 8y ago
Malpractice suits are brought over 3x as often in the US as in Canada, and malpractice insurance can cost more than an order of magnitude more. However, in the US there is a much greater incentive to sue. About 21% of malpractice suits that pay out, pay out over $1,000,000. Something that elsewhere would merely net you enough to handle the medical fallout, in the US nets you a lottery jackpot. Because the money on the line is so high it incentives both layers and plaintiffs to aggressively maximize the payout. Like so many other aspects of the US health system, other countries do it better. * All claims were the results of a few minutes of research on Google, I would be interested in learning of evidence that contradicts my claims.
scarface74 8y ago
Sometimes things happen. There are commercials on TV all of the time where lawyers are soliciting people to sue doctors for birth defects like cerebral palsy. I’m glad that my parents spent my childhood focused on therapy, motivation, etc to help me deal with cerebral palsy than placing the blame on the doctor. Yeah my case is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

karmajunkie 8y ago

This has been conclusive disproven by comparing what happened in different states that enacted tort reform for medical malpractice. The cost of insurance dropped a bit, but there has been no effect the cost of healthcare provisioning.

briandear 8y ago
I would argue that it hasn't been "conclusively" disproven. One key study "disproved" it in the aggregate across all insurance, but not on a specific specialty-by-specialty basis[1]. The malpractice costs of OB-GYN's for example are reflective of the potentially catastrophic tort liability exposure despite an overall low level of influence of tort reform on insurance costs generally. However, this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3536953/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3536953/ demonstrated that tort reform resulted in a larger percentage of growth in the number of physicians which would indicate that tort reform does have an important effect on medical care provisioning simply because tort reform, according to that study, resulted in a larger number of practitioners, which would, necessarily increase access to care. So while tort reform may not have reduced costs across all of insurance, it does have an effect on medical care supply and it could have an effect on costs on a specialty-by-specialty basis. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/ "An important consideration when interpreting our results is that our analysis provides evidence that the Texas reform had little influence on levels of health insurance losses, in the aggregate, across a variety of patient groups and provider specialties... As a result, if tort reform’s effects on provider behavior differ by the provider’s specialty type or the type of patient, then different analyses presented in the literature, utilizing different but relatively homogenous samples of provider or insured types, may yield conflicting results regarding the influence of malpractice exposure on healthcare cost and health insurance markets. Further research may consider how specific provider specialties and patient groups are influenced by changes in medical malpractice liability exposure."
- karmajunkie 8y ago
  That doesn't demonstrate any conclusions whatsoever about costs. What it demonstrates, however tenuously [1], should surprise no one: physicians have a preference to practice in areas where the costs of their malpractice are minimized. The notion that it brings costs down by increasing supply is a central tenet of the tort reform movement. However, this hypothesis has not been borne out by the evidence [2]. Moreover, as someone who worked in public health in Texas during the post-tort-reform era, particularly with hospitals in rural Texas, I can tell you anecdotally that the supply of physicians available outside major metropolitan areas declined when tort reform activists predicted an increase in supply. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047433 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047433 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/

beat 8y ago

Be sure you're sorting out partisan political information in your studies.