The Health Care Reform Address Thread

[Schneed10]

So let's get to it:

What are they doing?: Trying to reduce malpractice costs.

Why?: Because doctors pay out the nose to keep themselves covered, all because juries keep awarding people multi-millions. That cost of malp insurance drives up the cost of doc appointments as docs pass the cost on.

How will they do it? Unknown at this point, no specifics are available, but ultimately the only way to substantively reduce this cost is to somehow reduce the amount of money awarded to victims of malpractice.

How will it help? Over time malpractice insurance premiums will drop for docs. They'll stop raising prices for their appointments.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So let's get to it:

What are they doing?: Trying to reduce malpractice costs.

Why?: Because doctors pay out the nose to keep themselves covered, all because juries keep awarding people multi-millions. That cost of malp insurance drives up the cost of doc appointments as docs pass the cost on.

How will they do it? Unknown at this point, no specifics are available, but ultimately the only way to substantively reduce this cost is to somehow reduce the amount of money awarded to victims of malpractice.

How will it help? Over time malpractice insurance premiums will drop for docs. They'll stop raising prices for their appointments.

Here's my question...and it's a lazy one I'll admit. I attended our local town hall meeting which was of course dominated by discussion on health care. It was a very civil affair with probably a good 70-30 split against the current debated HR3200. I live in a heavily conservative area so this is to be expected. Now there were a good amount of the "we simply don't like this crowd". Mostly base on philosophical grounds. The other side was better "prepared". They had answers for everything it seemed but a lot of it sounded like spin to me personally. One woman claimed that her husband had been studying the entire industry for years and that medical-malpractice as it stands now causes only a 2-3% increase in costs. This sounded baffling to me but I admittedly have no reason other than it seems like doctors say that isn't true. So what is the deal? What affect does malpractice judgement in general have on the system? Is it only 2-3% or is it more or even far more? Anyone have anything that answers this conclusively?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here's my question...and it's a lazy one I'll admit. I attended our local town hall meeting which was of course dominated by discussion on health care. It was a very civil affair with probably a good 70-30 split against the current debated HR3200. I live in a heavily conservative area so this is to be expected. Now there were a good amount of the "we simply don't like this crowd". Mostly base on philosophical grounds. The other side was better "prepared". They had answers for everything it seemed but a lot of it sounded like spin to me personally. One woman claimed that her husband had been studying the entire industry for years and that medical-malpractice as it stands now causes only a 2-3% increase in costs. This sounded baffling to me but I admittedly have no reason other than it seems like doctors say that isn't true. So what is the deal? What affect does malpractice judgement in general have on the system? Is it only 2-3% or is it more or even far more? Anyone have anything that answers this conclusively?

I can tell you that at our healthsystem malpractice premiums account for about 3-4% of our total expenses.

Malpractice premiums are increasing at about 15% per year.

So while the rest of our costs increase at about 6% per year, because malpractice is going up by 15%, it is responsible for a half of a percentage increase in overall expense growth within healthcare.

Reducing overall healthcare expenses across the nation by a tenth of a percent would cut the deficit drastically. This could be accomplished by getting malpractice premiums to increase by only 12% instead of by 15%.

Small changes in expense growth accumulate to massive savings across the system, at least when compared to the projected deficit.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can tell you that at our healthsystem malpractice premiums account for about 3-4% of our total expenses.

Malpractice premiums are increasing at about 15% per year.

So while the rest of our costs increase at about 6% per year, because malpractice is going up by 15%, it is responsible for a half of a percentage increase in overall expense growth within healthcare.

Reducing overall healthcare expenses across the nation by a tenth of a percent would cut the deficit drastically. This could be accomplished by getting malpractice premiums to increase by only 12% instead of by 15%.

Small changes in expense growth accumulate to massive savings across the system, at least when compared to the projected deficit.

OK...but aren't people more concerned simply with the cost to themselves? When I am think about costs ultimately I am thinking what can we do to get those people paying $700 a month for insurance to only pay $600.

Also...the costs you cited...do they included the so called "defensive medicine" that doctors cite as causing issues?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

OK...but aren't people more concerned simply with the cost to themselves? When I am think about costs ultimately I am thinking what can we do to get those people paying $700 a month for insurance to only pay $600.

Also...the costs you cited...do they included the so called "defensive medicine" that doctors cite as causing issues?

Well ultimately cost is all tied together. Naturally, slowing the growth of malpractice saves providers money. Over time, providers get pressured by Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers to bring down their reimbursement rates to account for these savings. And providers will oblige under political pressure.

Once growth of reimbursement rates to providers is slowed, that puts more money back in the pockets of Medicare, Medicaid, and your insurance company. They then will slow the growth of your premiums.

It's all connected. It will take time for the savings to work their way through the system back to the consumer. But it will happen.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

OK...but aren't people more concerned simply with the cost to themselves? When I am think about costs ultimately I am thinking what can we do to get those people paying $700 a month for insurance to only pay $600.

Also...the costs you cited...do they included the so called "defensive medicine" that doctors cite as causing issues?

No, defensive medicine expenses are separate from the numbers I cited. The growth in actual malpractice premiums is entirely attributable to jury awards.

Wasteful utilization due to defensive medicine is a whole other cluster of expense that can also be cut.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can tell you that at our healthsystem malpractice premiums account for about 3-4% of our total expenses.

Malpractice premiums are increasing at about 15% per year.

So while the rest of our costs increase at about 6% per year, because malpractice is going up by 15%, it is responsible for a half of a percentage increase in overall expense growth within healthcare.

Reducing overall healthcare expenses across the nation by a tenth of a percent would cut the deficit drastically. This could be accomplished by getting malpractice premiums to increase by only 12% instead of by 15%.

Small changes in expense growth accumulate to massive savings across the system, at least when compared to the projected deficit.

The real cost of malpractice is something I've been looking for for a while. Can you reference statistics on the subject matter?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

The real cost of malpractice is something I've been looking for for a while. Can you reference statistics on the subject matter?

What sort of stats are you looking for? Premium costs? Average payouts?
Again, take a look at the consumer study I referenced. Lots of stuff in there. It's a "consumer" organization, don't know if it's just a front for the trial lawyers. Also, while the data seems to be pretty impartial, hard to tell from 15-20 mins of searching/skimming.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What sort of stats are you looking for? Premium costs? Average payouts?
Again, take a look at the consumer study I referenced. Lots of stuff in there. It's a "consumer" organization, don't know if it's just a front for the trial lawyers. Also, while the data seems to be pretty impartial, hard to tell from 15-20 mins of searching/skimming.

What I'm really looking for a survey of how much doctors are paying in insurance premiums on average and the average award by jurist. It's really hard to assess the scope of the problem without knowing the statistical data on who/what/when/where.

It seems that this information is top secrete and no one wants to disclose it. Not even by a government agency responsible for tracking this information.

Access to information in the NPDB is available to entities that meet the eligibility requirements defined in the provisions of P.L. 99-660 and the NPDB regulations . In order to access information, entities must first register with the Data Bank.
NPDB information is not available to the general public. However, information in a form that does not identify any particular entity or practitioner is available.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

What I'm really looking for a survey of how much doctors are paying in insurance premiums on average and the average award by jurist. It's really hard to assess the scope of the problem without knowing the statistical data on who/what/when/where.

It seems that this information is top secrete and no one wants to disclose it. Not even by a government agency responsible for tracking this information.

I have two friends who are doctors and one pays $90,000 and the other around $85,000 between the two only one was sued about 5 years back. Not sure what they received but my buddy said he screwed up in that case.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

The real cost of malpractice is something I've been looking for for a while. Can you reference statistics on the subject matter?

No don't have anything like that. I'm just referencing information from our own internal financial statements.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So let's get to it:

What are they doing?: Trying to reduce malpractice costs.

Why?: Because doctors pay out the nose to keep themselves covered, all because juries keep awarding people multi-millions. That cost of malp insurance drives up the cost of doc appointments as docs pass the cost on.

How will they do it? Unknown at this point, no specifics are available, but ultimately the only way to substantively reduce this cost is to somehow reduce the amount of money awarded to victims of malpractice.

How will it help? Over time malpractice insurance premiums will drop for docs. They'll stop raising prices for their appointments.

Again, I will raise my idea again - mainly b/c I think it's f'ing brilliant, but here it is actually relevant.

Eliminate malpractice liability as a tort action. Instead establish a Medical Injury Compensation Commission similar to Workers Comp. Patients no longer need to show negligence caused their injury, instead they just need to demonstrate an injury to receive compensation. As in Workers Comp, recoveries are based specific losses, temporary/permanent, and partial/permanent disability.

Instead of paying high malpractice insurance costs, all hospitals, doctors and medical professionals pay MIC insurance (just like all employers pay Worker's Comp insurance) - it won't be cheap, but it should be less than current malpractice. Plus, it has the added benefit of spreading costs of all professions amongst all practitioners (instead of huge premiums for Obstetrics and ortho's). Malpractice litigation is all but eliminated and replaced with MICC litigation which, like Workers Comp, follows a more formulaic approach.

Further, this could be done separate from the current bill and, in fact, could be drafted as a companion to it so to show how the two would work in conjunction.