4 ms·
I can't take any analysis of the American health care system seriously when it makes no mention of tort reform. Compare litigation awards in the US and the res
by asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
I can't take any analysis of the American health care system seriously when it makes no mention of tort reform.
Compare litigation awards in the US and the rest of the world, or just Canda, and you'll see a huge difference.
This leads to much, much higher health care costs, and the practice of defensive medicine, and most perversely HMOs which can not be sued for denial of care.
That by the way is the only way HMOs can exists at all, by being put entirely out of the legal system.
I am not suggesting that tort reform is the ONLY way to fix health care in America, but it should at least be part of any discussion on the topic.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago> This leads to much, much higher health care costs Citation, please? Conventional wisdom is wrong here. It's true that it increases costs, but this doesn't amount to a significant amount of what we pay.
- moss 17y agoSome initial Googling finds one article putting malpractice claims at about half a percent of the total cost of health care in the U.S. ("The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims is estimated at $6.5 billion in 2001, only 0.46 percent of total health spending." [1]). On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a place to look for serious improvements. Is there something non-obvious that makes it more significant than it sounds? [1] http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/4/903 http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/4/903
- byrneseyeview 17y agoRisk preference? Individual doctors are exposed to a risk of many times their annual salary if something goes wrong and a patient gets a lawyer. If they have the choice between an operation costing $X with a 10% chance of failure, and one costing 50*$X with a 1% chance of failure, they may choose the latter so they don't need to worry so much about getting sued.