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