In Gesture of Bipartisanship, President Obama to Discuss Medical Malpractice Reform Tonight

So, why all of the sudden do we have Obama wanting to talk to the Republicans about tort reform? I just read an article about an hour ago with some Republicans on the Hill stating Obama has not conversed with them about health care since April. It’s amazing what a chameleon this president is. He will flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop to the point that NO ONE knows where he stands. Including himself.
People have known for years that doctors have been bowing down to the demands of certain patients who are convinced that “something is wrong with them” and want more tests, more tests, more tests. Health care needs to be in the doctor’s office or in the hospital, not in the courtroom.

Is he just going to discuss it? Or is he going to insist that it be part of a reform bill? Even with that on the table, I do not think you ever can hope to control costs without having the insureds more invested in the cost of their care, e.g., through high-deductible/HSA plans, where they have a self interest in reducing the cost of health care. Any other method imposed by fiat by the government will have negative consequences, either rationing or shortages (which is a form of rationing).

“The president is going to talk about the downside of what many doctors have told him is the practicing of defensive medicine, where doctors because they are worried about this order more and more tests in order to make sure that they don’t get sued,” Gibbs said on CNN. “That costs our system billions and billions of dollars every year.”
Every Lib on this site has insisted that Tort Reform is only a distraction and won’t save any real money.

When the rats realized they could also trample a citizens Constitutional rights with tort reform they were all for it .

June 15, 2009
Obama started by sympathizing with doctors “who feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits” and said he recognizes any health overhaul will be hard to accomplish without changing that. The crowd burst into loud support.
“Don’t get too excited yet. … Just hold onto your horses here, guys,” Obama said as he prepared to deliver what he knew would be disappointing news.
“I want to be honest with you. I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards,” the president said, greeted by a smattering of boos.
He added, without offering specifics, that “excessive defensive medicine” that is conducted out of fear of lawsuits and that increases health costs should be curbed.

“POTUS pulls head out on tort reform? Can jwh be far behind?”
Foghorn Leghorn | Sep 9, 2009 4:44:01 PM
I’ve never been against tort reform, just pointing out the REALITY that it is not a solution to the cost problems we face. If Obama is going to throw it in there to call Republicans out on their obstructionism, go for it. While he’s at it, I’d love to see him grab McCain’s idea of taxing health insurance provided by employers too. Put together a bill with all the best of what Republicans disingenuously claim they would support and dare them to flip-flop and say no.

June 15, 2009 …Obama started by sympathizing with doctors … (on) “fear of lawsuits” and said he recognizes any health overhaul will be hard to accomplish without changing that. The crowd burst into loud support.
“Don’t get too excited yet. … ”
“I want to be honest with you. I’m not advocating caps on malpractice” … greeted by a smattering of boos.
Posted by: tjp612 |
JUNE 15 – in front of the AMA right?! I hadn’t realized – what a missed opportunity! As a gesture, it may be too late now.

The continuing saga of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s EPIC FAIL of leadership.
—At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in OPPOSITION to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will VOTE AGAINST a health care bill without a strong public option.
Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.—

“JUNE 15 – in front of the AMA right?”
Correct, sir.

Malpractice premiums are not secret knowledge….
Posted by: jhw539 |
Tort reform is not about insurance premiums. Did you even bother to read the blog post? In what REALITY is 250 to 500 billion over 10 years not real savings?

Many states, including California, already adopted serious tort reform years ago. Guess what? Malpractice premiums do NOT drop. Malpractice insurance carriers just maintain or increase their rates and pocket the savings from tort reform.

For primary care specialties, the cost of insurance continues to be one of the highest practice expenses.
In 2007, ob/gyns paid the fourth-highest amount for medical malpractice insurance in the nation, according to the Medical Liability Monitor.
Suffolk and Nassau ob/gyns that participate in the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co. pay a starting rate of $177,880. About 60 percent of ob/gyns here are part of Medical Liability Mutual.
This is reality, not exaggerated anecdotes.

Malpractice premiums do NOT drop. Malpractice insurance carriers just maintain or increase their rates and pocket the savings from tort reform.
Posted by: Fed Up | Sep 9, 2009
Where are the facts on this?
According to the laws of economics, especially since doctors are not among the powerless, there is only one way for any business to just “pocket the savings”.
That is NO COMPETITION, no choice for doctors – is this due to government corruption, red tape or both.
We need more competition and less government limiting the professionals.

“Wow, so doctors that require profession representation due to malpractice tend to have high malpractice premiums? What a shocker.”
Any doctor (and any other professional) who does not carry malpractice insurance is out of his mind. You don’t carry it because you expect to commit malpractice. You carry it because you expect to be sued for malpractice, which is a very different thing. And if you are sued and do not have insurance, your practice and everything else you own are at risk in front of a jury of laymen being harangued by the likes of a bottom-feeder like John Edwards.
I’m prepared to accept the estimates of Sen. Bradley and HHS as reasonable.
But neither tort reform nor anything else can cure the many outrageous ills of Baucus care, let alone HR 3200.
Anyone seen any constitutional analysis of a congressional mandate to purchase health nsurance?

Shoe, it’s been widely reported that Obama has been in lengthy discussions with Olympia Snowe on an ongoing basis,and has spoken to some Republicans about health care since April, and, Inconvenient Truth, many people have called me a lib (although I maintain I’m more left of center, but for the purposes of the spectrum represented on here, I’m way more liberal than many) and I’ve said many, many times that I’m open to tort reform that skins the cat in a manner other than simply capping rewards and tying the hands of those with legitimate claims. Patient safety and rights have to be given consideration, IMO. I’ve also said many, many times that I can’t believe it’s not being used as a bargaining chip by either side. And I’ve admitted that the trial lawyer lobby is an issue–way before Dean said it. And I’ve heard the President say he was open to tort reform– though that was before his speech to the AMA.
I think this is a good thing, IF the other side is open to being bipartisan rather than insisting on nothing beyond caps on rewards, deregulation and tax incentives. We’ll see what happens.

So NOW for Obama to get thru Health Care Reform he has to bargain for Republican votes. We’re waiting…..
Posted by: robertb | Sep 9, 2009 7:03:51 PM
***
I think this is likely misreading the tea leaves, but we’ll see.

The Bush hhs report Jake cites is highly political.
There is a greater likelihood of doctors withdrawing from practice due to increases in their office rents or payroll costs than due to increases in
malpractice insurance costs.
Physicians spend about 3.2 percent of their gross income on medical malpractice costs.
The average medical practice spends three times as much money persuing payment of bills from insurance companies and patients than they do on malpractice costs.

“So NOW for Obama to get thru Health Care Reform he has to bargain for Republican votes. We’re waiting…..”
robertb | Sep 9, 2009 7:03:51 PM
Ah, the minority party acting like petulant fourth graders. Just like Democrats in the 90′s – hang on, you mean Democrats actually negotiated in good faith with Republicans on Welfare Reform? Well what about the giveaway to the rich trillion dollar Bush tax cuts – you mean they were mature and worked with a disliked president to get it done? Well Democrats were filibustering all the time in the Senate – oh, the Republicans doubled the number of filibusters when they went into the minority and set new records every year since?
Huh. I guess it really is just the Republican party that acts like petulant fourth graders.
Cut them out and put it through the reconciliation process, just like Republican Presidents have done so many times in the past.

We need to make an example of the 5% of doctors who cause the majority of injuries.
Until the politicians are ready to do something to bring some accountability to the medical profession, they can shut the #### up about tort reform.
***
I think this is where we always get hung up– the tort reform folks just want to look at one side of the equation. Don’t you think there’s room for comprehensive medical malpractice reform that lowers malpractice, increases patient safety and addresses the frivolous lawsuit issues?
I do agree that malpractice accountability issues don’t seem to be something the GOP has expressed great interest in, btw, and that’s why it’s difficult to reach any kind of meeting of the minds.

More cheap talk from a liar.
I’m watching “So You Think You Can Dance” instead of “So You Think You Can Lie”.

Doctors that go “bare” tend to be office-based: it is impossible to get practice privileges at a real hospital without malpractice coverage.The amount of funds spent on defensive medicine is astronomical. Studies rarely if ever address those procedures done purely to CYA. Lung CT scans to rule out pulmonary emboli are a case in point. The procedure itself is about a grand a pop. Then you have to cover the complications of the procedure. All so that a doctor can show the lawyer that he met the standard of care-even though no studies have shown a cost-benefit advantage over doing nothing.

Well, darn, listened to the speech and the bone he threw the republicans on tort reform was itsy-bitsy. A pilot program to test the idea? Nonsense. We’re not pilot programming Democrat proposals, right?
So he didn’t scare his lawyers buddies one bit with that little throw-away paragraph. Darn, I actually had my hopes raised.

Pete, Nephron, X, thanks for speaking up based on your own experiences. Tort reform is necessary to reduce health care costs.
Pete, I sympathize with your situation. I have friends who are ER doctors and I don’t know how they do what you guys do. Keep up the good work.
I recently went to the ER with chest pains and an elevated BP that would not go down. I am a heart patient with multiple stents, so I knew the rules– when in doubt, go to the ER. I had also had a thallium stress test within weeks of the visit and worked out in rehab the day before. An EKG showed no active heart attack, my BP finally began to subside and my chest pains went away. Still, they kept me for several more hours and not only did extensive blood work but sent me for a chest x-ray we all knew would not show heart failure. The visit cost my insurance company, and ultimately me, a lot of money and most of it was money spent on redundant and/or unneccessary tests “to be on the safe side.” Translation– to avoid a lawsuit. Defensive doctoring. We need to get a handle on it.

Moderate: I can see that nothing the president does can satisfy you or the republicans. He accepted two of the suggestions made by republicans and would maybe accept more if they came to the table. Unfortunately, we will never know because they won’t work with him. They would rather see thousands of people without insurance than work with a president who is trying. Remember, he has to keep his party happy too and this is a fine line. I have been to Rep congressman Tom Price’s office twice and was told they would not work with his plan. Their plan is more for the insurance companies than the general public. How insane have we become when politics is more important than making things happen. That is why so few things get accomplished…both parties are guilty.

Now Obama says he’s going to study the issue. “I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today,” he said.
That would be Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, whose resume includes eight years as director of the Kansas TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
So Obama has chosen a former trial lawyer industry lobbyist to run tort reform.
Why are people so cynical about health care reform?

GOP proposals on medical malpractice reform are and always have been insincere, immoral, even deadly. They all mis the point. This is because they do not address actual “malpractice” itself which cost lives. They merely target the fallout in terms of money costs from resulting lawsuits. A decade ago we leadned that medical malpractice is the THIRD leading cause of death in the U.S. (JAMA) (Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000). Nothing has changed since. Perhaps instead of capping the resulting lawsuits they could reduce actual malpractice and savings would follow. That would be a proposal we could actually “live” with. However, I would never expect GOP right-wing ideology to be distracted by facts.