Mississippi is reaping the benefits:
“We had hospitals closing their delivery rooms,” said Barbour. “We had only one neurosurgeon between Jackson and Memphis.”Then came tort reform in 2004 and now doctors are coming back. Barbour announced the fifth decrease in medical liability rates in three years. Overall, that’s a 45 percent decrease.
But more importantly, lawsuits against doctors for medical malpractice are down. Home grown doctors like Carol Harris can move back.
“When we start our practice, we’re not making huge amounts of money and to pay large premiums for malpractice is very difficult for most physicians,” Dr. Harris said.
Related posts:
- The success of tort reform
- Texas tort reform a "national success story"
- Mississippi: What happened after tort reform
- Using checklists in the ICU, a real world patient safety success story
- Tort reform working in Texas
- My take: Tort reform, Curt Schilling, e-mails
- How tort reform can stimulate the economy
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 26 comments }
The people of Mississippi deserve everything that they have coming to them including but not limited to the devaluation of their young and elderly. At that point, I am not shocked by how much the people will give up in order to support the current system that does little to place them in the position of primacy.
Is malpractice down? Ahh, who cares – at least physician’s liability carriers are making more money!
That is an interesting statistic, that each physician represents 52 jobs in a community. I like it. I personally employ 5, and bring $100,000’s per year to my local hospital, which employs thousands.
Thanks for post Kevin.
Aw gee. No jackpot for the trial bar. They can only sue for unlimited economic damages and a few hundred thousand noneconomic. You always seem to forget about the unlimited economic damages.
Don’t fret, there’s always new ambulances to chase. Try the dry cleaners.
Umm, unlimited “economic damages”, just means you can pay your bills like you could before, and pay your doctor to help you through the trauma that you’ve been through. It does not compensate you at all for the loss of the quality of your life. It’s just money that pretty much goes to other people so you can survive.
That’s the patient – you remember them don’t you? Maybe you’d like to trade places with the victim of malpractice for that “jackpot”?
Didn’t think so.
It’s interesting to see how Kevin chastises the single payer advocates for sketchy reasoning and shaky statistics but will declare a “success” at every turn for his liability carrier. I guess when it’s your lobbying issue, you’re not as thorough in your vetting of the claims.
I’m fully aware of what patients are. They are also the people who couldn’t access medical care because of liability risk.
Loss of quality of life is compensated up to the limit of the law.
If that risk is too great, please feel free to stay away from medical care.
You are free to be the control group for the natural history of disease. Sort of like the joke about using lawyers in experiments, because there’s some things rats won’t do.
Where in Mississippi were people unable to find physicians?
There is more than one way that unlimited liability reduces access to health care. The obvious, and most easily quantifiable, is the loss of physicians. The second, hidden, loss of access is in the increased cost of health care. Ultimately, all patients pay the malpractice insurance. Like all costs of doing business, it is passed on to the consumer. If money is tight, you don’t have insurance, and your doctor’s rates for a self-pay office visit went from $60 to $100, you may not go.
We will not address the increased testing for “zebras” as a result of concerns about malpractice, but there too, the patients pay. Costs matter in improving patient access. To a certain extent, malpractice increases costs beyond what is reasonable, in large part, to enrich those who claim to serve the interests of the patients.
I wouldn’t want to trade places with the patient in the wheelchair any more than I would want to trade places with the client deliberately cheated by the lawyer who doesn’t carry malpractice insurance (optional for lawyers in 49 states).
Nor am I saying the patient gets the “jackpot”. Of course, it’s the lawyer who gets the jackpot.
Jackpot? Let’s see, invest tens of thousands of your own money (according to physicians who claim their insurers spend $100,000 defending each claim), work for countless hours without pay, and maybe get paid at the end? Not to mention pay your overhead, screen other cases you decide not to take, etc. while you’re not getting the income. In a field where the average verdict is only $300,000.
That’s quite a redefinition of the term “jackpot”. What does a lottery winner get if that’s a jackpot? A super duper awesome surprise?
“It’s interesting, though, that you can claim the moral high ground by berating others for doing the same.”
I claim no moral high ground. I’m simply noting the different level of skepticism Kevin applies to claims and statistics when he thinks it will put more money in his pocket.
“The second, hidden, loss of access is in the increased cost of health care. Ultimately, all patients pay the malpractice insurance. Like all costs of doing business, it is passed on to the consumer.”
Sorry, after bitching time and again about how you CANNOT pass the cost of business on to the consumer because their health insurer and medicare won’t pay for it, you can’t then turn to that argument.
But if you could, it’s still ignorant. Are you arguing we guarantee that all insurers should be profitable lest they pass the cost of business on to the consumer? Why stop at health insurance then?
Aw, gee.
Invest tens of thousands of your own money, work for countless hours (I’ve never met a lawyer who dodn’t know how to count his hours) pay overhead, and maybe not get paid at the end (assuming there’s no high-low agreement).
Welcome to the doctor’s world.
But if the average verdict is only $300,000, what’s the problem with a noneconomic limit of $500K in Mississippi? The noneconomic limit is higher than the typical total award.
All it does is limit the outlyer.
The “jackpot”.
“The “jackpot”.
This jackpot, it sounds like a good thing. Can you tell me what winner of this “jackpot” you’d trade places with?
“Welcome to the doctor’s world.”
Doctors expend tens of thousands of their own money on patients? Be serious.
“But if the average verdict is only $300,000, what’s the problem with a noneconomic limit of $500K in Mississippi? The noneconomic limit is higher than the typical total award.”
I would say for one it’s the same problem that physicians have with CMS setting their compensation. It’s a number chosen by lobbyists without any correlation to the actual work, or in this case harm suffered by the plaintiff. Shouldn’t the actual facts of the case determine the injury, and not insurance lobbyists?
I’m not trading with a patient injured by a doctor any more than I would want to trade with a person cheated by a lawyer. The ones who don’t carry malpractice insurance as it’s only required in one state.
At least the surgeon didn’t mean to operate on the wrong leg, as opposed to the lawyer who intends to cheat.
And yes, doctors spend tens of thousands of dollars, it’s called “overhead”. Five grand for the procedure table. Twice that for my small surgical equipment. The obstetrical ultrasound. I could go on. I buy equipment, the lawyers buy the opinion that suits him.
And yes, the actual facts of the case determines the economic damages, and the usual plea to the jury about noneconomic damages is “how do you put a price on…..whatever damages the patient faced”. The State of Mississippi, like Texas, California, Illinois, Indiana, and a number of other states, provides juries with guidelines to make that decision.
Because that part is not facts, it’s emotion, and everyone knows that. So the next John Edwards can channel all the babies he wants, but the jury in Mississippi can return $500K noneconomic damages and unlimited economic damages.
Ah, another expert on trials who has never tried a case. Is this how you practice medicine as well? Is your name Trent Lott?
Sounds like I hit the mark all right. Sorry if the truth hurts.
There’s a lot of nonphysician medical “experts” on the site though.
I like that. You say something, then repeat yourself and say “sounds like I hit the mark.” Are you with the Bush Administration? That appears to be how they make decisions as well.
Touchy aren’t we.
Sorry if your jackpot gravy train was disturbed. YOU can keep on repeating yourself if you like, but the fact is, tort reform is the law of the land in that state, and it is working.
No, I’m not trading places with any injured parties, medical or legal. I do notice that it’s the John Edwards types in the mansions, not the clients. I know who’s getting the “jackpot”.
But not to worry. There are always other ambulances you can chase, other clients for you to cheat. I’m sure you’ll survive.
“tort reform is the law of the land in that state, and it is working.”
What’s working? You’re making more money? OK. See you at the next stock market decline when you’re not.
Is the price of healthcare for the patients going down? Is there less malpractice? Or can we just admit that the whole thing is about putting more money in your insurer’s pocket which hopefully they will pass to you?
Didn’t think you’d trade places with anyone. You’re not brave enough to even admit how you’re screwing the already injured patients, and you probably lack the intelligence to replace the lawyers.
Funny, regardless of what the stock market does, tort reform affects the cost of malpractice insurance, as seen in Texas. It has also taken the judicial hellholes and made them more attractice to the docs, as we see with the backlog of applications in Texas.
Sorry, if there’s anyone screwing the injured, it is, and always has been, the lawyers.
Like they say about lawyer jokes. Lawyers don’t think they’re funny, and non-lawyers don’t think they’re jokes. There’s a reason why you’ve earned that reputation as a profession.
When are you going to require lawyer malpractice insurance in your state?
Replace the lawyers?
Now that’s an idea. Maybe shaved apes. No, but apes have scruples.
Guess I’ll have to try the back of the phone book, as lawyers are a dime a dozen.
“Funny, regardless of what the stock market does, tort reform affects the cost of malpractice insurance, as seen in Texas.”
The only way one could say that is if they didn’t know what the stock market does. In fact, every malpractice “crisis” has corresponded with stock market declines. This is easily verifiable, I’m surprised you didn’t know.
“Sorry, if there’s anyone screwing the injured, it is, and always has been, the lawyers.”
Yeah, because your insurance company just loves to pay claims even when it knows your negligent. And you were just itching to write a check to help that person with their future medical bills and lost wages, eh?
Are you even fooling yourself with this stuff?
Yet Texas rates go down and my state goes up.
Must be different stock markets.
What state are you in and what’s your specialty?
Texas rates went up 150% and have now declined about 40%. What did your state’s do?
I wish my state did that.
Comments on this entry are closed.