Bush's health plan: Cap suits, contain costs(save 37B of $15 Tril over 10y

[papau]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/16/second.term.health.ap/index.html
Bush's health plan: Cap suits, contain costs
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Posted: 12:01 PM EST (1701 GMT)

BUSH'S HEALTH PLAN Bush wants to limit jury awards from malpractice lawsuits, give individuals more control over their health care spending through tax breaks and increase the role of private insurers in Medicare. Impact: The Bush administration says its plan would make health insurance accessible to more than 11 million people who don't already have it. Critics say the changes would do little to stem costs and could even make health care less affordable.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Limiting jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits is President Bush's health care priority in his second term agenda, but there is strong disagreement over whether such caps would help contain rising costs.<snip>

The nation spends more than $1.5 trillion a year on health care. Costs are growing much faster than the overall economy and the number of uninsured has increased by 5 million people to 45 million in the past four years. The public is expressing concern about being able to hold on to health insurance and afford medical care.

Republicans and other advocates of capping the damages that juries can award argue that suits without merit drive up health care costs in two ways: forcing malpractice insurance rates up and encouraging the practice of defensive medicine.

Karen Ignagni, chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, said such suits add up to $100 billion a year, when unnecessary tests doctors order to ward off being sued are added in. "Then there's the whole issue of safety and quality. Providers are afraid to talk about things that go wrong because they are afraid of being sued," she said.<snip>

An analysis of the Bush health plan by the consulting firm the Lewin Group put the savings from changes in liability at $37 billion over 10 years.<snip>

[Liberal Veteran]

1. How about we CAP costs and contain suits?

Wouldn't that make MORE sense?

[olddad56]

2. and how does this help the patient who got damaged.

[Ernesto]

3. Great! Let "honest" pharm. corps. have their way with the public

with no risk. Just what the Dr. ordered for Merk! How many will pay, (and die) for 'merica's corporate greed?

[kainah]

4. My doctor is interesting

I've been chronically ill & disabled for 30 years. I've had the same doctor for about 27 of those years. Over the years, we've talked a lot about health care reform because it's an issue that I've long been involved with. Fifteen years ago, he would argue vigorously against any sort of "socialized medicine" concepts.

Now, however, he's totally in favor of single-payer, with that payer being the federal or state government. He told me about a year ago that he used to think there could be nothing worse than being responsible to the government. "Now I know there is something MUCH worse -- being responsible to all the different health insurance companies."

This from a pretty red doctor in a very red state. Any doctor who really cares about their patients can't help but see how bad the situation has become. And these plans being promoted by * will not only not improve the situation, they will almost certainly make it worse.

And the great irony of the "tort reform" movement is that a very large percentage of those suits would automatically vanish if people simply had guaranteed access to health care and didn't have to worry so damned much about how they will pay their medical costs well into the future. Not to mention that universal, single-payer health care would also immediately resolve the Medicare problems. Medicare could vanish as everyone gets subsumed into the new program.

Of course, the insurance companies would take a big hit -- and we can't have that, can we?? :shrug:

[grumpy old fart]

10. It's all about protecting big business

and nothing else. And don't forget, Mr. "I'm a compassionate christ-like heart surgeon" Frist and his DEEP vested interest in all of this. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/nw/nw003495.php3

[northzax]

5. so the highest estimate of the cost of malpractice suits

is 100 billion out of 1.5 trillion? or 6.6% of the total cost? so cutting it out completely wouldlower health insurance premiums by 6.6%? interesting.

Of course the independant consulting firm who studied the project says that it's a lot closer to .24%. who to believe? oh, let's pickis, shall we? 3.42%. or 600 Billion over the next decade. think that our premiums will actually go down that much?

[shoelace414]

6. ..

give individuals more control over their health care spending through tax breaks

YOU NEED TO HAVE THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF I SPEND $1000 ON HEALTH CARE JUST BECAUSE IT'S TAX FREE MONEY MEANS I STILL SPEND 1000 ON HELTH CARE.

Gads. I keep hearing crap like "We need to put comsumerism in health care" that means "Insuance should pay less and you should pay more. Like i have the option between gettng health care and dying. well.. I guess I do have that choice.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!

[makhno]

7. That would work...

...if the government did a proper job of regulating the medical industry (among others). Since it doesn't, and the Bush health plan obviously does not include any additional checks on the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the lawsuit remains the only power available to the American citizen at this point.

The NYT has been running a series of articles on the depredations of the unregulated, corrupt rail industry. About the only recourse available to the victims of corporate greed is the lawsuit.

[grumpy old fart]

8. Typical Bush solution

The rich and powerful will take care of themselves, and f'ck everyone else. This whole "tort reform" crap is nothing but a ruse to make it impossible for regular folks to obtain legal counsel, and to make it possible for corporations to operate free from any restraints or consequences in harming the public in their quest for profits. Profits, by the way, that will not filter down to employees, or even small shareholders, but will remain in the hands of the growing CEO aristocracy. Which aristocracy will, by the way, continue to become established through the abolition of the euphemistically called "Death Tax" (which only affects those with estates well over a million dollars).....grrrrr

[denverbill]

9. Well, let's cap economic damages first.

After all, if Dickwad Cheney dies because of an incompetant doctor, Lynne can sue for loss of his earning power, which in his case is tens of millions per year over probably 20 years life expectancy.

If DenverBill dies because of an incompetant doctor, Bill's wife can sue for his $60K earning power over his 20 years life expectancy.

So Lynne would probably get 20X$10,000,000 = $200,000,000, while Bill's wife gets $1,200,000.

The only place where damages for rich and poor are equal is in 'pain and suffering' and other 'non-economic' awards.

If we really want to put a dent in malpractice, we can clearly reduce awards FAR more by limiting economic damages. Why should Lynne deserve $200,000,000? Is her loss really that much greater than my wife's?

on edit: Better yet, if we really want to cap medical costs, why not limit the campaign contributions of drug and insurance companies to lawmakers. That will save a helluva lot more than $100 billion per year if they stop setting health policy.

[grumpy old fart]

12. or more to the point....

say Bill was disabled, and didn't really make much income at all. He was 55 years old. All he was was a loving father to his 4 chldren and a soulmate to his wife. The economic damage would be relatively small. Without "non-economic" damages, the doctor gets a freebie, and goes back to fucking up, with nobody the wiser.....In the case of corporations, they can have the accountants figure out, pretty accurately, what the cost of killing x number of people a year and factor it into the price. Do any of these "tort reformers" actually believe we would have seat belts, airbags, etc....if it weren't for lawyers and tort law?

[mulethree]

30. right, I think thats the real reason for the 'extra' damages

I doubt Mr. Cheney would get any 'pain and suffering' damages out of a jury once they saw the 'economic damages'. While hopefully Bill would get 'P&S' damages relating to "you didn't just kill some future paychecks you killed a Person".

Plus it assumes that Mr Cheney will be an idiot and keep working to 20 years instead of retiring at 5 years with $50,000,000, or spend 8 years as Vice President at $300,000 a year or spend the rest of his life in jail for treason.

It assumes DenverBill will never invent that better mousetrap that makes him $10 Million.

[AP]

11. Subsidize negligence. Guaranty profits. Weeeee!

[mother earth]

24. Exactly my thoughts, AP

Insurance companies rule the world. They are the ones that need to be capped.

[AP]

26. Another thing: who do Republicans think will be left holding the bag

when victims of negligence don't get all the money they need to make their lifes whole or don't get enough money to make negligent people behave properly?

People who aren't compensated for their injuries will become either dead from not getting the care they need or they'll become wards of the state. In the first case, society will lose the value they bring to the world just by being alive. In the second case, taxpayers will have to pay for their social services (while negligent corporations get to hold on to their ill-gotten gains).

And what happens if corporations don't have to pay for the damages they cause? Corporations won't have an incentive to behave non-negligently. There will be more injured people just so that corporations can stay rich.

[lawladyprof]

13. Tie it to a cap on the number of malpractice suits a dr. loses

Didn't Florida just pass a three strikes and you lose your license law?

[RuleofLaw]

17. Yes we did

But the amendment is put on hold by an injunction since nobody knows how to actually implement the amendment. (Which is really poorly written and completely unnecessary)

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/16/State/Judge_says_not_yet_to.shtml

[lawladyprof]

14. The meme should be, "Juries--OK for death penalties but not for $$$." eom

[grumpy old fart]

15. Ok to punish Criminals, but not Corporations.

Typical rethuglican thinking. Juries can decide life and death, but don't let them near corporate profits.

[tsuki]

16. Why don't we just dissolve government and hand over the

country to the insurance companies.

In Florida, they control medicine. They tell the doctors how much they can charge, how much they have to pay for medical malpractice and how much we have to pay for insurance. Plus we must get "permission" from the insurer to have a procedure.

The doctors who are sued have no say. The insurance companies settle and then hike the malpractice insurance.

The only crack in the whole system are the attorneys. And now they want them out.

Like "no fault" car insurance, this will be a bonanza for the insurance companies.

[struggle4progress]

23. You're catching on! It's the Grover Norquist plan! eom

[DuaneBidoux]

25. Nader may be a traitor but he is right about one thing

The government was long ago handed over to the corporations. Hell, the government has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporations.

[mulethree]

29. still democracy

people own the corporations own the government.

The only difference is you get a vote for every share you own instead of one vote per person. A Bonus! your votes count in dozens of countries instead of one!

[bluedeminredstate]

18. Where is the outrage against

the insurance companies which are making obscene profits while dictating policy?
How we got to this point where it's the wronged/maimed patient being greedy and not the insurance companies absolutely baffles me.

[RedEarth]

19. Well hell, that solves the health care crisis in the US...won't be long til

premiums start falling like a rock....damn, it sure is comforting to know george is back for four more years...

[Cocoa]

20. i.e., he has no plan

pathetic.

[RevCheesehead]

21. I'm surprised he even thought of one - oh, wait - nevermind.

Then there's that annoying feeling that maybe he should have said so BEFORE the election?!?

[Nicholas_J]

22. The fact that no stae that has done this

Ha seen its medical costs reduced, or doctors malpractice reduced anywhere in which this has been done is simple proof that tort reform will not reduce the cots of medical care one bit.

Notice Bush has already completely forgetten all other aspects of his health care program that was at least supposed to provide health care for 11 million people who dont have it.

THe Bush plan would still keep health insurance out of the hands of those who can not afford it, and simply allow those who have enough money to afford it but who don not want to pay the rates that they would have to pay now to buy it. Essentially is it a plan by the rich, for the rich.

[Mountainman]

27. So how many people without health care ins will get it?

How many George? How many uninsured people will this help?

Not a damned one!

[Dr Ron]

28. Cut Malpractice--But it won't cut costs much

As a doctor I'd love to see more done to curtail malpractice suits. But I won't lie to you (like Bush does) and say that doing this will save the rest of you much money.

The Congressional Budget Office found that malpractice accounts for only about 2% of health care costs, and that Bush's plans would reduce health insurance by less than half of one percent. Considering that health insurance premiums have gone up by double digits under Bush, this would hardly help.

Besides, Bush's proposals do much more for insurance companies than doctors. Kerry had a much better plan which directly helps doctors, and which also goes after the malpractice insurance carriers which continue to increase their premiums despite a decrease in their costs.

Before the election I was involved in an online debate over malpractice at a conservative site (defending Kerry's proposals). For far more than you might want to read about malpractice, check out:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/feature/election2004.php

There is also material at the Doctors and Nurses for Kerry site at:
http://doctorsandnursesforkerry.org

[eridani]

31. Good refs--here are more

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38849
To: National Desk, Health Care Reporter

Contact: Douglas Heller of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, 310-392-0522 ext. 309

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Oct. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The nation's largest medical malpractice insurer, GE Medical Protective, has admitted that medical malpractice caps on damage awards and other limitations on recoveries for injured patients will not lower physicians' premiums.

The insurer's revelation was made to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) in a regulatory filing obtained by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR). The revelation was contained in a document submitted by GE Medical Protective to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19 percent a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards. In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice caps after Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change.

According to the Medical Protective filing: "Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0 percent." The company also notes that a provision in the Texas law allowing for periodic payments of awards would provide a savings of only 1.1 percent. The insurer did not even provide its doctors that relief and eventually imposed a rate hike on its physician policyholders.

The Medical Protective document can be downloaded from: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/rp/rp004689.pdf

According to a St. Paul Insurance company study provided to the Florida Department of Insurance at the time:

"The conclusion of the study is that the noneconomic cap of $450,000, joint and several liability on the noneconomic damages, and mandatory structured settlements on losses above $250,000 will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice."

"Time after time insurers present caps as the panacea for high insurance rates only to argue that caps actually have a negligible impact when it comes time to send doctors the bill," concluded Heller.

[Poor Richard Lex]

32. Good Grief - his health care plan is TORT REFORM?

give me a break. This admin is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Make sure you look after your rich buddies georgie.

[The Zanti Regent]

33. Don't forget the tax credit you get when a preacher prays for you!

All that other faith based shit.

If you die, well, that's Gawd's will...