Malpractice not causing high medical costs The Next Left A new study says U.S. has the highest medical costs in the world. That, of course, is not new. But it also breaks down those costs, and attempts to determine their source.
While medical malpractice is a problem, its costs account for less than 1% of spending. And defensive medicine, where doctors run tests or do procedures to lower their chances of being sued, makes up no more than 9% of total spending, the study of spending in 30 nations found. …
In 2001, the average malpractice award in the U.S. was $265,100. That was lower than Canada's $309,417 and the United Kingdom's $411,171 but higher than Australia's average payment per settlement or judgment of $97,014. All four nations had malpractice payments that represented less than 0.5% of total health spending.
And apparently we’re not getting that much for what we’re paying.
Despite a widespread belief that Americans make frequent use of some of the best medical care in the world, they see doctors less often and spend 20% fewer days in the hospital than most other countries, Anderson said.
Americans checked in for 4.8 hospital days on average in 2003, down from 5 days in 1999 and 7.3 days in 1980, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Another interesting point: in other industrialized nations, insurers negotiate as a bloc with pharmaceutical companies, which helps them get lower prices.
Via Marketwatch
A new study says U.S. has the highest medical costs in the world. That, of course, is not new. But it also breaks down those costs, and attempts to determine their source.
While medical malpractice is a problem, its costs account for less than 1% of spending. And defensive medicine, where doctors run tests or do procedures to lower their chances of being sued, makes up no more than 9% of total spending, the study of spending in 30 nations found. …
In 2001, the average malpractice award in the U.S. was $265,100. That was lower than Canada's $309,417 and the United Kingdom's $411,171 but higher than Australia's average payment per settlement or judgment of $97,014. All four nations had malpractice payments that represented less than 0.5% of total health spending.
And apparently we’re not getting that much for what we’re paying.
Despite a widespread belief that Americans make frequent use of some of the best medical care in the world, they see doctors less often and spend 20% fewer days in the hospital than most other countries, Anderson said.
Americans checked in for 4.8 hospital days on average in 2003, down from 5 days in 1999 and 7.3 days in 1980, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Another interesting point: in other industrialized nations, insurers negotiate as a bloc with pharmaceutical companies, which helps them get lower prices.
Via Marketwatch
",0]);D(["ce"]);D(["ms","7d59"]);//-->
I was on a conference call with Nancy Pelosi Tuesday afternoon, and she was clear: There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the House will vote to pass the Senate health-care bill in its present form.
"Don’t even think of asking us to vote for the Senate bill unless the other bill has passed both houses that will amend it through reconciliation," she said. But she promised several times during the call: "We will get this done."
What the House apparently will vote for is a repeal of the antitrust legislation that exempted the health insurance and malpractice insurers for the past 65 years. She said it will happen next week.
And in case you haven't figured it out yet, the new Democratic mantra is "Jobs, jobs, jobs." Pelosi wove the theme throughout the call.
She talked about job lock ("If you want to leave your job and become a writer or an entrepreneur without worrying about your health insurance, you can do that.")
"Every issue for us has been about jobs. The recovery, the budget, health, education, climate and energy bills – all about the economic well-being of America’s families," she said.
"Healthcare is central because the current system is so unsustainable. It’s not back-burnered," she said. She noted the difference it make "in the economic security of America’s families.
"We have to get this done, we are so very, very close.
She said some senators are calling her, urging her to take the opportunity to put in single payer and the public option. "I have to wonder, is there a market for these things?" she said, noting she didn't think the Senate had the votes for either.
She ended the call with an exhortation.
"It’s a heavy lift," she said. "The other side has endless money, total determination that change will not happen." She said the insurance industries have the "same philosophical backing as the same people who tried to keep Medicare from happening."
"It’s a pretty exciting time. You can’t be discouraged, we have to keep fighting for the American people and our democracy, she said.
"It’s not only about their health, it’s about economic security. We are determined to get that done. If I sound calm, it’s because we will not be deterred from this, we will get it done."
Many Democrats are operating under the assumption that Democrat Martha Coakley will lose today's election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. In the debate over how Democrats could possibly lose the race--which has major repercussions for President Obama's agenda--Coakley herself is taking more and more of the blame. Some Democrats and liberals aren't waiting for the polls to close to turn against Coakley and her campaign. Here's a taste of what they're saying...read on
In the wake of its shocking assessment that employer-provided health insurance now covers only 54.6% of the American people, Thomson Reuters released a disturbing assessment of wasteful spending in the U.S. health care system. Echoing the estimates of Obama OMB chief Peter Orszag and others, the analysis highlighted by Keith Olbermann Tuesday concluded that the United States wastes up to $700 billion a year - a third of the nation's total $2 trillion health care spending.
As Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters and author of the white paper, put it:
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill. The good news is that by attacking waste, healthcare costs can be reduced without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care. That's the point of this report - to identify areas in the healthcare system that can generate game-changing savings."
Those game-changing savings, TR found, could be found across a broad range of health care spending. Between $600 billion and $850 billion, it estimated, is wasted on:
Unnecessary Care (40% of healthcare waste): Unwarranted treatment, such as the over-use of antibiotics and the use of diagnostic lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure, accounts for $250 billion to $325 billion in annual healthcare spending.
Fraud (19% of healthcare waste): Healthcare fraud costs $125 billion to $175 billion each year, manifesting itself in everything from fraudulent Medicare claims to kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services.
Administrative Inefficiency (17% of healthcare waste): The large volume of redundant paperwork in the U.S healthcare system accounts for $100 billion to $150 billion in spending annually.
Healthcare Provider Errors (12% of healthcare waste): Medical mistakes account for $75 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year.
Preventable Conditions (6% of healthcare waste): Approximately $25 billion to $50 billion is spent annually on hospitalizations to address conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes, which are much less costly to treat when individuals receive timely access to outpatient care.
Lack of Care Coordination (6% of healthcare waste): Inefficient communication between providers, including lack of access to medical records when specialists intervene, leads to duplication of tests and inappropriate treatments that cost $25 billion to $50 billion annually.
But in its catalog of health care spending horrors, however, Thomson Reuters may have understated potential savings in one area while overstating them in another.
In recent days, Republican leaders have scored a series of political victories in their eternal quest for tort reform. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that an onerous package of malpractice curbs he championed could save the government an estimated $54 billion over 10 years. That came on the heels of President Obama's latest offer to support limited tort reform as an olive branch to recalcitrant Republicans balking at his health care proposals, including funding for a $25 million pilot program.
But largely overlooked in the heated discussions of damage award caps, special health courts, expert panels and national compensation schedules is the inescapable truth that the medical malpractice system has only a negligible impact on overall American health care costs. Republican horror stories of a torrent of baseless malpractice suits producing "jackpot justice" that fuels rising premiums for physicians and patients alike while driving doctors from practice simply don't comport with reality. The overstated, overblown, over the top and often outright false GOP claims suggest that the Republicans' real target is not the flawed American malpractice system, but instead the nation's trial lawyers whose campaign contributions help bankroll the Democratic Party.
Here, then, is a look at Republican Malpractice Myths:
Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Kerry (D-MA) talked about the process of health care reform on Sunday :
STEPHANOPOULOS: These insurance reforms, you can't be denied health care if you're sick. You can't get thrown out if you're sick.
A lot of Democrats, Republicans say that maybe we should have this individual mandate, to require people to buy insurance, to couple that with reforms.
Bill Bradley points out today, I think it was in The New York Times, that, you know, maybe they should include some malpractice reform as well. Are they -- those three things the building blocks of a deal?
HATCH: Yes, they really are. You know, Democrats have been unwilling to take on the personal injury lawyers. And look, there are cases that really deserve huge rewards, huge judgments.
We've got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are. Most of them are brought...
KERRY: And that's doable, most definitely.
HATCH: Yes, and that's doable. Most of them are brought to -- you know, to get the defense costs. They know that once they bring them, the insurance companies are going to have to pay their defense costs rather than take a chance at a runaway jury.
But it's not just that. It's the other elements you've been talking about too. Those are three very important...
Let's just wait one minute here. Bill Bradley? Although he has a reputation as a liberal's liberal, Bradley has never met a tax cut he didn't like. And when he starts talking about malpractice reform in exchange for healthcare reform, what he's talking about once again is ordinary people giving up another degree of security and protection against powerful forces to meet some politician's ideal of centrist compromise.
When approximately five percent of all doctors are responsible for 95% of all medical malpractice, how is that a legal problem? I'll accept limitations on malpractice awards when we have a national health care system that pays for every service someone needs to deal with with the outcome of bad medicine. Until then, I'll keep my torts, thank you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And then if you add some subsidies to that that move towards covering more people...
KERRY: Yes, which I think we have some -- actually, I think we have some flexibility on as to sort of the rate and manner in which you do that. So I think that there are ways to do this, George.
As a member of the Finance Committee, I've been part of this discussion, though many of us would like to see it broadened in some ways. I'd like -- I mean, you know, my question to Orrin and to others is, you know, who is the Republican? Who are the Republicans, plural, who are prepared to step up and do as Ted Kennedy would have done here?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were part of the negotiations earlier this year but then stepped away. Are you ready to come back?
HATCH: Sure. I've always been ready to do that. But look, you talk about an individual mandate. The problem with an individual mandate is that the people who are really hurt the most are those on the lower end of the wage spectrum.
They either lose their jobs, a cutback in pay, or the company goes overseas. Once you start doing that -- because the theory behind that is that you've penalized the company if they don't provide insurance for their people by having them have it surcharged.
And look, let's just be honest about it, it's a very difficult thing to do. There are some ways we could do this, none – both sides...
KERRY: Actually, Orrin...
HATCH: Both sides are arguing for insurance reform. That's not the issue. The issue is, how do we put all of these elements together?
American businesses file four times as many lawsuits as do individuals represented by trial attorneys, and they are penalized by judges much more often for pursuing frivolous litigation, according to a report issued today by Public Citizen.
The survey of case filings in two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) and two local jurisdictions (Cook County, Ill., and Philadelphia, Pa.) in 2001 found that businesses were 3.3 to 5.8 times more likely to file lawsuits than were individuals. This comes as businesses and politicians are campaigning to limit citizens rights to sue over everything from malpractice damages to defective products. By way of comparison, the number of American consumers (281 million) outnumbers the number of businesses in America (7 million) 40 times. To read the report, click here.
Last December, Newsweek featured a cover package by Stuart Taylor and Evan Thomas that blared: "Lawsuit Hell: Doctors. Teachers. Coaches. Ministers. They all share a common fear: being sued on the job." Paired with a weeklong tie-in on NBC News and online chats on MSNBC.com, the article claimed that because "Americans will sue each other at the slightest provocation," the country is suffering from an "onslaught of litigation" that costs Americans $200 billion a year. The story was full of tales claiming to illustrate Americans' overarching sense of legal entitlement and desire to "win a jackpot from a system that allows sympathetic juries to award plaintiffs not just real damages…but millions more for the impoossible-to-measure 'pain and suffering' and highly arbitrary 'punitive damages.'"
Not only were the particulars of the Newsweek story misleading. The essence of the story was wrong, too. Newsweek's "onslaught" of lawsuits simply hasn't happened. According to the National Center for State Courts, a research group funded by state courts, personal injury and other tort filings, when controlled for population growth, have declined nationally by 8 percent since the 1975, and have been falling steadily in real numbers since 1996. The numbers are even more dramatic in places with rapid population growth, like Texas, where the rate of tort filings fell 37 percent between 1990 and 2000. Even in liberal California, the rate of filings has plummeted 45 percent over the past decade. And those overly sympathetic juries Newsweek derides as so eager to dole out big bucks to injured victims?
In 2001, they voted against plaintiffs in 75 percent of all medical malpractice trials, according to the federal government's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). read on
