Cato has truly shocked me….stupefied really
by Michael Halasy
Cato has truly shocked me….stupefied really.
Those who have followed me at Angry Bear will recall my series on tort reform that I wrote this past year. In particular, I wrote a piece on the possible safety risks that patients would be exposed to, with a 0.02% increase in patient mortality with a 10% reduction in medical malpractice liability costs…
Well, just the other day, I received an update from Cato. Now, Michael Cannon is a good guy, and while he and I simply don’t agree on … well much of anything from a health policy perspective, his colleague, Shirley Svorny, wrote this:
More broadly, patients derive protection from an interdependent system of physician evaluation, penalties, and oversight that includes hospital and health maintenance organization credentialing and privileging activities, specialty boards, and the medical malpractice insurance industry. Underlying nearly all of these activities is the threat of legal liability for negligent injuries. Reducing physician liability for negligent care by capping court awards, all else equal, will reduce the resources allocated to medical professional liability underwriting and oversight and make many patients worse off. Legislators who see mandatory liability caps as a cost-containment tool should look elsewhere.
I believe that I have been consistent with this…over and over. There are some reforms that could work. So called “indirect” reforms. Joint and Severability reform, mandatory periodic payments, dedicated malpractice courts, patient compensation funds, etc. etc. But direct reforms, IE; caps on noneconomic damages DO NOT WORK.
So, I have to (gulp) swallow some pride, and tip my hat to Cato….Now I need to go take a shower. I feel a little dirty.
Trial lawyers are bad particularly when they go after trillion dollars frauds!!
Look what the congresses did to dilute suits aginast the banksters in the 90’s and 00’s.
Cato’s argument is that the fear of litigation is the ONE element that ensures low level of error by doctors. So the argument if true, is those jursdictions where malpractive lawsuits are difficult would have a much higher error incidence.
Since, the rest of the planet, doesn’t have the crazy (now you know my bias) american legal system, how come its not a problem. Moreover, the cost of litigation is born by insurance companies, which hike premiums — so the patients (and the system) ends up paying.
I don’t know why you feel dirty (unless this was a hugely sarcastic blog… oh I get it, sorry)
“Since, the rest of the planet, doesn’t have the crazy (now you know my bias) american legal system, how come its not a problem.”
There is something about this part of the comment that makes the rest of the comment confusing……Yet, I can’t put my finger on it!
Just a little poke at Cato. I actually like most of the people there, just have the occasional philosophic disagreement.
Should have a new blog post in the next week or so.