The WSJ on what she’s thinking:
Mrs. Clinton also nodded at medical malpractice reform. She neglected, however, to support the proposals that would actually reduce costs, such as punitive damage caps and specialized medical courts. These, not incidentally, are also the programs most vigorously opposed by the tort bar.
Rich Lowry comments. (via Catron)
Related posts:
- Malpractice systems
- Layperson juries: A physician’s friend?
- "We ought to have evidence-based tort reform"
- Texas tort reform a "national success story"
- Will reforming the malpractice system be a deal breaker for health reform?
- Fixing malpractice is a vital part of health reform
- A doctor decides to insure himself for malpractice
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
What evidence is there that specialized medical courts would actually reduce costs?
Or for that matter, that punitive damage caps do? After all, it’s likely not even 1% of all medical malpractice cases involve punitive damages.
There is no evidence that specialized medical courts would actually reduce costs–and there can’t be until they are tried. Duuhh.
I think he means pain and sufferring award caps–and there is evidence that they reduce costs. The huge premium drops (and massive influx of physicians) in Texas supports that.
Nowhere in that op ed piece did she talk about what she expects from physicians, and if I remember, she used to say that doctors shouldnt be in private practice. I hope she tones that down.
Comments on this entry are closed.