That makes it 5 years in a row since tort reform.
Related posts:
- Why Howard Dean is wrong on medical malpractice reform
- Gone to Texas
- Texas tort reform a "national success story"
- Medical malpractice verdicts
- Would you trade your salary for free medical school and "tort-adverse" malpractice?
- Will medical malpractice reform be included in the final health bill?
- Texas malpractice reforms are working too well
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 8 comments }
As CJD would say, it is just because the stock and bond markets are doing so well.
Inspiring statistic. It gives me more ammo as I encourage our docs to join in medical societies so that our voice is heard.
Ms. MOM @ MOMrants.com
Correlation=cause!!
More pollution being released by man’s activities plus warming trend means man is causing global warming, too!
So let’s see – they raised rates over 100% between 2000 and 2003, but now they’ve lowered them 30%?
Who’s the big winner? Insurance co. marketing, that’s who!
That’s great, Kevin! How much have patients saved on their healthcare bills?
Interesting. I don’t know what the actual tort reforms were, so I can’t speak to this well. Does anyone have more specifics on the actual reforms in TX?
Dominic A. Carone, Ph.D.
Founder and Webmaster of MedFriendly.com and The MedFriendly blog.
How much did they save on their medical bills?
Thirty bucks a visit, when the patient had to drive to the nearby city for medical care ’cause there was no doctor willing to practice in the small town because of malpractice risk.
>>The insurance group cut rates 12 percent in 2004; 5 percent in 2005; 5 percent in 2006; 7.5 percent in 2007 and now 6.5 percent in 2008. Other insurers have dropped premiums, too.
Well, if rates were doubled, say 100 to 200. As 100 is the baseline. Now we go up to 200. Use that year’s rate as the baseline for calculation.
200-12%=176
176-5%=167.2
167.2-5%=158.84
158.84-7.5%=146.93
146.927-6.5%=137.38
So my rate went from 100 to 200. We get tort reform, and after several years the rate goes down to 137. I’ll take it.
So from 200 to 2007, the rate goes from 100 to 137, versus, if previous increases were indicative, 400-plus without tort reform?
Comments on this entry are closed.