It reads: Hoping to enlist support for his campaign for health care reform, President Obama told the American Medical Association this week that he would work with doctors to limit their vulnerability to malpractice lawsuits. That was a reasonable offer — provided any malpractice reform is done carefully.
Whether malpractice reform would save much money is unclear. Malpractice claims do drive up insurance premiums paid by doctors in some high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and neurosurgery. Those costs are presumably passed on to patients. There is also concern that doctors may overprescribe costly tests and treatments to avoid possible lawsuits. But the evidence is inconclusive, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that doctors engage in enough “defensive medicine” to have a significant impact on costs.
The office estimates that caps on damages would ultimately reduce malpractice premiums for medical providers but would have a “relatively small” impact on total health spending, reducing it by less than half a percent. Even that could save billions of dollars a year, which is not trivial. But malpractice claims are probably not a major cost driver.
Still, most doctors are convinced that malpractice suits are unfair and burdensome, so it is worth exploring the issue, if only to gain their help in reforming the health care system. Whatever the alternative — tribunals, mediation — patients must retain the right to go to court and seek higher damages than they have been offered. That is the only way to deter negligence by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers...
CBO Confirms its Support of Med Mal Reform
Supposing the passage of medical malpractice reform, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) upped their projected savings to $54 billion from $5 billion over the next 10 years. Several lawmakers, particularly former ambulance chasers, were not satisfied with the new estimates and asked for more detail.
Last week, the CBO sent an 8-page letter to Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who was once the head of Iowa’s trial lawyer association, to answer his concerns about savings and reform would result in loss of care.
The CBO explained that the new estimates are larger, in part, because “they incorporate the effect of a gradual reduction in the utilization of health care services resulting from changes in the practice patterns of providers” such as fewer “defensive medicine” expenses; and “a proportionately larger reduction in federal spending on health care than in other spending on health care.”
As for any changes in care, no one can answer that one. The suggestion is that fewer tests may result in poorer outcomes. However, the reduction of those extra tests, which are potentially unnecessary other than to cover the provider’s liability, would definitely result in savings. You can read the full letter here.
It looks like there still may be some hope....