There are five Republican candidates attempting to win the Republican primary and face Senator McCaskill for one of Missouri's two Senate seats. At a recent debate, the two front runners argued as to who was more in favor of tort reform. In other words, they both want to be the least qualified candidate for the good of the citizens of the state of Missouri.
John Brunner, a St. Louis businessman, claims that former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman was a roadblock to tort reform measures when she was a Missouri state senator. Steelman, on the other hand, owns up to having supported a tort reform bill that sought the draconian loser pays form of tort reform.
According to Brunner, Steelman was the only Republican to filibuster against tort reform bills in 2003 and 2004. Steelman disputes Brunner's claims.
Looks to me that both Brunner and Steelman are making it easy for Missouri voters to know that they do NOT stand up for the citizens of Missouri but instead seek to take away the rights of Missourians. If either is elected to the U.S. Senate, citizens of the United States can expect the same anti justice stance.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Tort reform just doesn't work as advertised
Wendell Potter with the Huffington Post debunks the various so called alternatives to Obamacare, one of which is the passage of sweeping tort reform limiting justice for victims of medical malpractice. Potter does a good job illustrating that tort reform does not help a state increase it's ability to provide healthcare through an increased number of doctors, it does not lower premiums for malpractice insurance for doctors and certainly does nothing to help protect those injured by medical malpractice. Here's the section of his article that discusses tort reform:
"As for tort reform, just look at Texas, where it was ineffective in holding down medical costs and improving access to care. Lobbyists for physicians and insurers sold the idea that a big reason for medical inflation is an epidemic of multimillion dollar jury awards that have led doctors to practice defensive medicine so they won't get sued. Texas legislators in 2003 enacted a law that caps non-economic (pain and suffering) damages at $250,000 against physicians and at $750,000 against hospitals. Sponsors of the legislation promised it would attract doctors to Texas and lead to lower premiums and, consequently, to more affordable coverage.
None of that happened. Texas has actually lost ground to other states on the number of doctors per capita since tort reform was enacted. And while the cost of malpractice insurance did drop initially, there has been no evidence doctors have passed along any savings to patients. In fact, the average premium for family coverage in Texas in 2010 was $14,526 -- $655 higher than the U.S. average. And tort reform has not made a dent in bringing more Texans into coverage. Texas had the highest percentage of residents without coverage (one of every four) in 2003, and it still does."
The full article is here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/health-policy-dogs-that-w_b_1497469.html?ref=politics
"As for tort reform, just look at Texas, where it was ineffective in holding down medical costs and improving access to care. Lobbyists for physicians and insurers sold the idea that a big reason for medical inflation is an epidemic of multimillion dollar jury awards that have led doctors to practice defensive medicine so they won't get sued. Texas legislators in 2003 enacted a law that caps non-economic (pain and suffering) damages at $250,000 against physicians and at $750,000 against hospitals. Sponsors of the legislation promised it would attract doctors to Texas and lead to lower premiums and, consequently, to more affordable coverage.
None of that happened. Texas has actually lost ground to other states on the number of doctors per capita since tort reform was enacted. And while the cost of malpractice insurance did drop initially, there has been no evidence doctors have passed along any savings to patients. In fact, the average premium for family coverage in Texas in 2010 was $14,526 -- $655 higher than the U.S. average. And tort reform has not made a dent in bringing more Texans into coverage. Texas had the highest percentage of residents without coverage (one of every four) in 2003, and it still does."
The full article is here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/health-policy-dogs-that-w_b_1497469.html?ref=politics
Saturday, May 5, 2012
New study confirms that passage of tort reform does not attract more doctors
Like in many states (including my home state of Mississippi), tort reformers claim that physicians were abandoning the state in droves because of the lack of tort reform. They used this argument to scare the public and politicians into passing tort reform that hurts, not helps, 99% of their constituents. In fact, at the time that Mississippi's doctors were allegedly fleeing our "jackpot justice" state, there were newspaper articles in other states claiming that the doctors in those states were also fleeing .... To Mississippi. Apparently, Mississippi missed out on a major source of revenue by not adding a state border crossing tax on any vehicle containing a physician.
After tort reform is unfortunately passed in these states, the tort reformers then come back later to claim that doctors are returning en masse to the point that there are doctors on every street corner.
A recent study performed by David A. Hyman with the University of Illinois College of Law, Charles Silver with the University of Texas at Austin Law School and Bernard S. Black with the Northwestern University School of Law debunks the claims of tort reformers by studying the medical community in Texas both before and after their ill fated passage of tort reform in 2003.
Their study found no evidence to support either of the claims of tort reformers. As they stated, "physician supply was not stunted prior to reform". It also did not "measurably improve after reform" was enacted. The authors even studied the differences between low risk types of medicine (i.e. family physicians, etc.) and high risk specialties (ob gyn, neurosurgery, emergency room). The study found that tort reform did not increase the number of doctors even in these high risk practices.
The full study can be found here - ssrn.com/abstract=2047433
So, once again, tort reformers are shown to use factually baseless scare tactics to pass laws that protect no one but profit only the few.
After tort reform is unfortunately passed in these states, the tort reformers then come back later to claim that doctors are returning en masse to the point that there are doctors on every street corner.
A recent study performed by David A. Hyman with the University of Illinois College of Law, Charles Silver with the University of Texas at Austin Law School and Bernard S. Black with the Northwestern University School of Law debunks the claims of tort reformers by studying the medical community in Texas both before and after their ill fated passage of tort reform in 2003.
Their study found no evidence to support either of the claims of tort reformers. As they stated, "physician supply was not stunted prior to reform". It also did not "measurably improve after reform" was enacted. The authors even studied the differences between low risk types of medicine (i.e. family physicians, etc.) and high risk specialties (ob gyn, neurosurgery, emergency room). The study found that tort reform did not increase the number of doctors even in these high risk practices.
The full study can be found here - ssrn.com/abstract=2047433
So, once again, tort reformers are shown to use factually baseless scare tactics to pass laws that protect no one but profit only the few.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
