While apparently Mookie has decided to avoid a serious discussion on this issue, I would like to inform some of the readers regarding the points he - and by extension - the person quoted in the article/blog he linked were making.
Now, Its important to actually read the blog/interview, since the first thing one notes is that it is dated 2009. Sounds fairly recent - but the latest medical data study (not costs study) that the good Dr. Baker could point to was 1996. Hmm wait a second - thats 15 year old data. Well, it gets better - or worse, depending on your perspective. Dr. Baker is a "critic" of tort reform - in other words - he is perfectly HAPPY with the system as it is. Wonder why? Well, could it be because he is a professor of LAW and Health Services? In other words, he teaches lawyers - who are the ones that get the nice big contingency fees for such cases. He teaches folks like John Edwards, who by "channeling" the spirit of a dead child, made over a million dollars in contingency fees for a malpractice suit.
So now that its clear that the Dr. Baker has a reason to not want tort changes, lets look at his data for arguing against it. After all, judging an argument on the desires of the person is unwise - their facts may hold water. Dr. Baker is correct on some things - for example 2.1 Trillion dollars was spent on health care in 2007. He then quotes the Towers Perrin Study saying Tort Costs totaled 30.4 Billion, or 1 to 1.5 percent of the total costs. Dr Baker is telling an out and out
LIE here - the 2008 update for the
total tort costs in 2007 from Towers Perrin is not 30.4 Billion, but 252 Billion. Verify this at:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...j-eJdxTYkg34qA
If you prefer not to use the google doc viewer - just google TOWER PERRIN TORT and read it yourself. I will quote it here (page 5):
Quote:
|
Towers Perrin estimates that total insured and self-insured tort costs in the U.S. were $252 billion in 2007. This is an increase of $5.1 billion, or 2.1%, from the estimated $246.9 billion of tort costs in 2006.
|
$252 billion is nearly over 10% of the TOTAL costs in 2007. Yet this is only the TORT costs - it doesn't even take into account the increase in insurance premiums the doctors - and thus by extension - we the consumers - pay. Considering the same study notes that insurance premiums have risen beyond the rate of inflation - the link between excessive RISK of tort claims and the increases in costs cannot be ignored.
Tort reform is not a panacea for health care. Anyone who thinks it is could not be more wrong. But - taking on a segment of costs that is more than 10% right now, plus the (very conservative) 7% extra defensive medicine costs, along with the decrease in risk exposure insurers would face - could easily equate to a 20%-25% drop in costs. Is it a total fix? No way. But knocking about 1/4 of the costs off is a really good start!
Why did Dr. Baker lie? I don't know. But look at the CBO's numbers from 2007 - then look at Towers Perrin. 10% is nothing to sneeze at - and when your talking the associated savings as well, tort reform is a major piece of the puzzle.
The only folks who don't like the idea of tort reform seem to be those in the law field, or those who get suckered into taking someone's word as gospel.