Comments on: Why no malpractice reform in the current bills?

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:04:52 +0000

Here's the latest from the Congressional Budget Office and the effects of tort reform. Thought readers might be interested. http://bit.ly/6LmwRe

By: Mark Theroit

Mark Theroit — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:46:27 +0000

This is from the first link I posted. The CBO does say we would save billions, but the sad thing is that it's only 0.5% of health care spending.

"Citing recent studies, including two new economic papers published only last month, CBO concludes that limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent, or about $11 billion this year. That would save taxpayers about $41 billion over the next decade in lower Medicare, Medicaid and other federal spending for health care."

I'm an internal medicine resident by the way.

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:15:13 +0000

Mark, I don't agree. I think that tort reform would save billions, as was concluded by the non-partisan Congressional Budet Office. In addition, we physicians know in our gut that we order lots of unnecessary medical care for self protection. If you have decent rapport with your physician, bring this up on your next appt.

By: Mark Theroit

Mark Theroit — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:26:01 +0000

While the affect on physician psyche/morale/job satisfaction I think is pretty clear, I've always read that real economists don't measure much in the way of healthcare savings with tort reform. It may make logical sense, but it doesn't seem like the data backs it up. I guess that's why we have EBM. http://factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/ http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/ While there are plenty of other good reasons for malpractice reform, it doesn't look like cost savings is one of them.

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:37:17 +0000

For your readers from this week's New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/views/29case.html?_r=1&hpw

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:13:55 +0000

Almost any reform of the medical liability system would be better than what we now endure. There is only one consitutency who benefits from the status quo. Physicians lose. Patients lose. Evidence-based medicine loses. I've been in the legal arena many times during my 20 yr career. I was innocent in every instance, a fact that a cursory review of the facts would have determined at the outset. Who can defend a system that is unfair to the medical profession, generates billions of $$$ of defensive medicine and misses most instances of true medical negligence? I wonder how 'pay for performance' would reward this performance? www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com