Malpractice suits only make something like 1% of healthcare costs, and malpractice insurance is already everywhere. This isn't measuring the right thing. Pret

Malpractice suits only make something like 1% of healthcare costs, and malpractice insurance is already everywhere. This isn't measuring the right thing. Pretend that some lawyers managed to win a case locally that the "standard of care" for a shoulder injury was an MRI, even through there is no medical reason, because a bunch of doctors in one hospital did it for whatever reason. Now all the doctors in town rapidly move to MRI'ing every shoulder injury so they don't get sued. This doesn't show up in the malpractice premium numbers. "Standard of care" is strictly a one-way ratchet. If enough doctors in your town/county/field do something, you have to do it, too. You can have comparative results research as long as your arm showing it has no benefit (and even creates slight radiation risks) and it won't do you any good. "Standard of care" is the legal term of art, and it always increases, never decreases. Two more pieces of evidence that lawsuits matter [1] 1. Vaccine manufacturers were going to stop making vaccines because the lawsuit risk was getting too high. (Vaccines do have risks, although minor.) The vaccine courts were set up and everyone seems pretty happy with it. 2. Hillary Clinton's health care plan from 1993 had a whole bunch of tort reform. This is not because the Clintons hated trial lawyers! But they didn't want the courts to be the ultimate arbiters of how much medical care someone should get. You would not be allowed to sue for malpractice without first going through an arbitration process. [1] I'm not blaming everything on lawsuits. But you couldn't run an NHS-like system privately in the US.