More Studdert malpractice study interpretation

Thanks Mr. Studdert for giving us the study that highlights the glaring flaws of our malpractice system. No matter how it is spun, the numbers clearly speak for themselves:

Finally, the fact that payment was made in 19 percent of claims with little-to-no evidence of error and 32 percent in a slight-to-modest evidence of error is evidence enough that the tort system is woefully inadequate from the physician’s perspective. Add into that the fact that the median time to closure was five years.

It is no wonder, then, that physicians will be incentivized to order tests and perform procedures to avoid being sued, whether such tactics work or not. That cost almost certainly outweighs the total cost of professional liability premiums physicians pay in the United States.

It is helpful to think about a group ‚- a large group – not mentioned in the study. There are currently 46 million uninsured Americans. Improving the medical malpractice system would lessen the costs of defensive medicine, which would provide a stable source of funding for health insurance – and better healthcare and a better quality of life — for every American.

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Anonymous

    “Improving the medical malpractice system would lessen the costs of defensive medicine, which would provide a stable source of funding for health insurance – and better healthcare and a better quality of life — for every American.”

    You must be joking. This may be the most far-fetched argument for physician immunity out there.

    CJD

  • Anonymous

    ” This may be the most far-fetched argument for physician immunity out there.

    Sorry CJD I have not yet seen any physician asking for “immunity”. The only person I see using the “immunity” argument is you. Maybe you need to look up the definition of “immunity” counsler.

  • Anonymous

    I was giving you the best case scenario in immunity, figuring that’s the ultimate way to eliminate defensive medicine.

    Kevin still can’t support the above claim even if immunity existed.

    CJD

  • Anonymous

    Nobody is asking for immunity. Quit the grandstanding.

  • Anonymous

    Again, it has nothing to do with grandstanding. I’m merely saying, in your best case scenario of immunity, please explain how more Americans would have health insurance.

    So far, no answer.

    CJD

  • Anonymous

    Hello CJD can you read?
    NOBODY IS TALKING IMMUNITY.
    Since you don’t seem to understand the definition of immunity I was paste the definition for you:

    Immunity \Im*mu”ni*ty\, n.; pl. Immunities. [L. immunitas, fr.
    immunis free from a public service; pref. im- not + munis
    complaisant, obliging, cf. munus service, duty: cf. F.
    immunit['e]. See Common, and cf. Mean, a.]
    1. Freedom or exemption from any charge, duty, obligation,
    office, tax, imposition, penalty, or service; a particular
    privilege; as, the immunities of the free cities of
    Germany; the immunities of the clergy.

    2. Freedom; exemption; as, immunity from error.

    Got it? ….good now shut up.

  • Anonymous

    Clearly, you want to discuss something irrelevant so you can deflect from the fact that this claim is complete nonsense.

    So, I concede. Call your proposals whatever you want. Now, explain to me how enacting any of them is going to make more Americans have health insurance.

    CJD

  • Anonymous

    less defensive medicine = less cost to medical care = more people could afford health insurance premiums. Also more physicians willing to provide charity care or offer their specialty services to the emergency department.

  • Anonymous

    In every state where there is tort reform, why are medical services not cheaper?

    This is a nonsense argument, and that’s obvious.