Howard Dean, doctor, politician, former governor, and former melted-down Presidential candidate and DNC chair apparently has told the truth why there is no tort reform in HR3200. According to Red State Briefing, here's the quote:
"This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. Here's why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on. And that is the plain and simple truth."
Once again, trying to reform health care and trying to bring down the cost of health care without tort reform is foolish. I know it is easier to blame the insurance companies but they simply add a little margin on top of very expensive health care. In fact, they do far more in cost containment than the cost in the margin. They are a net reduction to health care costs.
You can’t say the same of my brethren on the plaintiff’s bar. To say you won’t take them on because you already have enough enemies for your bill goes beyond cynical. It doesn’t hurt, I am sure, that the ABA is firmly behind the Democrats. It is just another example of how haphazard and piecemeal this bill is and why it would be better to wait and get it right rather than force this through. It is like taking on the high cost of automobile insurance without doing anything about the cost of underlying repairs. Why not fix what is broken in the pricing system if you really want to cut costs. President Obama said that any health care plan had to cut costs and could not add to the deficit. The only way to get close to that is to take on the cost of health care and that means eliminating this whole malpractice overhead.
To paraphrase Congressman Charlie Dent, PA-15, once again, let’s spend more in the operating room and less in the courtroom. The litigation overhang adds far too much to our medical costs.
Limiting jury awards in malpractice is a start. They have gotten out of line with reality. It is funny that the same people who blithely give away millions (after all, it is just the insurance company) wonder why doctors raise fees (due to higher malpractice premiums) and why insurance rates go up (due to higher costs from the providers). Or maybe they don’t wonder since juries are often made up of the retired (Medicare) and unemployed (Medicaid, SCHIP).
We need to go further than simply reducing jury awards. We need to protect service providers from liability absent gross negligence or intent. If the FDA approves a drug or treatment, we need to indemnify those who produce, prescribe or perform it, again absent intent or gross negligence. We need to reduce the fear factor that causes us to delay drugs, adding to their cost, and then to run far more tests than are needed to fully protect the doctor.
Medicine will always involve risk. We are willing to take that risk because we are sick and want to be better. We are not talking about a sponge left in after an operation. We are talking about a legitimate treatment that sadly goes wrong. At times the operation is a success but the patient dies.
We know when we seek treatment that there are risks and side effects. We all know about that certain pill and an erection lasting longer than 4 hours. Other drugs will often have side effects that only show up after a long time. If we continue to hold providers to the strict liability we have had in this country we will continue to see a delay in treatment and higher prices.
Malpractice insurance and fears of malpractice claims are more to blame for health care costs in this country than any profit by health insurers.
We need our President to grow a pair and to move beyond attacking the profit motives of the insurers. When will Obama stop being a slave to the trial bar and also attack the entire malpractice industry? Until he does so, we cannot have real cost savings.
I will admit that the cost savings from tort reform are unquantifiable and subject to all kinds of debate. Some have told me it is only 1/2 of 1% figure. That apparently comes solely from looking at malpractice premiums. I think you have to look well beyond, including the additional cost of medicines due to liability and the cost of additional tests that really aren’t needed but they keep the general counsel and the insurer happy.
As I have said before, there is only one reason why drug companies spend billions to advertise drugs in the U.S. driving up the price? It has nothing to do with driving demand. Drug companies advertise to warn you of the risks! They are trying to establish informed consent. Nowhere else in the world do you see this waste where prescription drugs advertised like here--and it is due to liability concerns.
So, it is great that Howard Dean admits to the missing link in the terms of HR3200. Now, let him do something about fixing it!
Comments
Agree with you on the need for medical tort reform to lower malpractice insurance costs and defensive medicine. However, this (contract and liability law) is the realm of the states and not U.S. Congress.
What about a sound currency so that price inflation of health care from the Federal Reserve does not outstrip salary increases as it has for the past 10 years? What about tax breaks for privatized health care premiums? What about trying to get the gov't OUT of health care?
These are the solutions I outline in my health care platform, just search for "health care platform" at
towneforcongress DOT com
Jake,
Please check out my three earlier articles on the Constitution. My reading of Article 1, Section 8 is the same--this is a state issue. While you may not agree with my views on single payer, I think you'll agree that the states have to be the ones to implement.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!