From what some of your readers say, it sounds like tort reform also has overstated savings.

The bigger question is does tort reform lead to better medical practice. I suspect it would.

The usual self report problems.
I can see why physicians would be more likely to report that the order tests for defensive purposes rather than ordering them to increase their income.
The usual grain of salt; TID.

“Assurance behavior, reported by 92 percent of physician respondents, involves ordering tests (particularly imaging tests), performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation. Avoidance behavior, reported by 42 percent of physician respondents, includes restricting their practice, eliminating high-risk procedures and procedures prone to complications, and avoiding patients with complex problems or patients perceived as litigious. A recent unpublished study in Massachusetts showed that 83 percent of physician respondents ordered imaging and laboratory tests or made specialist referrals defensively.”

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

Note that it would be quite difficult to collect accurate data on CYA procedures because rarely would a physician want to go on record regarding this. Maybe after a beer or two… but it is not something the medical profession is particularly proud of and hence it is likely to be underrepresented in surveys.

– hp

Interesting perspective. I am assuming you are an attorney? I certainly don’t have the background to match you point-for-point, although I will see if I can find someone who does.

A couple of quick notes, though……

1) Only two percent of GDP goes to tort costs? ONLY two percent? At a glance that seems low, obviously – but you know – it really isn’t that low, is it? In fact, that is a huge percentage of our GDP devoted to an essentially non-productive activity. It is about double what is found in other western nations. What are those extra legal expenses buying us compared to other countries? How is it impacting our quality of life? Are we really any better off for it?

2) Say we could reduce medical costs by 1 percent via tort reform – that does not sound like much alone, but as part of a larger package I would take 1 percent.

3) If tort costs are reasonable, as you suggest, and reform is not needed, then lawyers apparently have a serious image problem. As you know, the general public does not hold lawyers in high regard – largely because our perception is that the law now serves the interest of lawyers and no longer serves the interest of the people. When I talk to attorney friends all it takes is about 2 beers to get them to admit that it is not about guilt or innocence or liability anymore – it is all about who puts on the best show. You can invoke lofty language about “the right to a fair trial” – but what is on trial seems to be the quality of your lawyer – something generally unrelated to the facts of the case. This may sound fine for lawyers – but to the rest of us it is broken….

I would suggest that lawyers need a serious image makeover – how do you guys plan to do that?

– hippieprof

http://www.krld.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2215113

This story from BusinessWeek.

“Doctors say the suits send health-care costs soaring, but studies show reforms would have little effect.”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm

and this from BusinessWeek March 3, 2003.

http://compuserve.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822079.htm

Following is a GAO report on medical malpractice and could not find any evidence to substantiate the claims of lawsuits impacting health care costs, access to health care or defensive medicine (with one possible lose connection relating to OBGYN). But of course you will not see this report on any media outlet swinging left or right.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf

Remember the CBO report regarding the cost of a single payer system that we all grasped to support our arguments against a single payer system…

Well, there is the CBO report which had this to say about tort reform:

“But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending–private or governmental–because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.”

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0#t3

And of course there is Tillinghast-Towers Perrin (one of the largest in the world that provides risk management for the insurance and reinsurance industry).

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

Of that 1 to 1.5 percent what portion of that is “frivolous”?

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=USA/2008/200811/2008_tort_costs_trends.pdf (Page 10)

And then of course the report from Towers Perrin that states that the total tort cost in the US is 2% of the GDP. What percentage of that is “frivolous” and of that percentage what percentage is “frivolous” corporate lawsuits. So how much are “frivolous” lawsuits driving up the cost of everything? Maybe less than 2 cents on the dollar or maybe even less the 1 cent on the dollar?
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=USA/2008/200811/2008_tort_costs_trends.pdf