Comments on: “Obama’s medical malpractice opportunity”

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:01:42 +0000

How come only the medical malpractise part of the bill merits a pilot project?

One possible reason: we already know how the rest of ‘universal healthcare’ or ‘single payer’ turns out:

Bad.

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D

Michael Kirsch, M.D — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:52:31 +0000

Yes, you give the president much too much credit for his limp nod toward tort reform. With respect, this is a joke proposal. To spend a paltry $25 million on some ‘pilot projects’ in his $1 trillion health care reform boondoggle speaks for itself. His language in the speech communicated his disinterest. He stated that the med mal situation ‘may’ increase defensive medicine. ‘May’? Has he spoken to a live physician about this? See http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com/ under the Legal Quality category.

By: Soronel Haetir

Soronel Haetir — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:38:18 +0000

Jack Wilson,

Even worse, tort reform has to *work* in those demonstrations, unlike the other ideas.

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:11:56 +0000

How come tort reform is the only part of this plan that needs to go through a demonstration project?

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:06:17 +0000

William MD, I discuss this with my own PCP and my son’s pediatrician every chance I get. First rule of politics: who gets what and how much? Follow the money.

By: Soronel Haetir

Soronel Haetir — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:37:09 +0000

Health courts might be enough to finally get the 7th amendment incorporated against the states. Be careful how you tread here.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:24:46 +0000

It’s true that there is a large existing array of state-enacted reforms to study out there. That doesn’t mean all the reform possibilities have had at least one tryout, though. Health courts, early offers, and scheduled damages have not, to name three. I also I suspect there are things the federal government could do in its role as payor and provider for large sectors of the medical system that would not be merely duplicative of what states have tried to do.

By: William M

William M — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:10:57 +0000

After ten years of medical practice I can assure you defensive medicine DOES drive up the cost of health care on a number of different levels. I would be happy to give numerous examples if you would like.

William M. MD

By: Black Death

Black Death — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:37:06 +0000

The truth is that there are already plenty of demonstration projects out there. A number of states have already enacted various tort reforms, including award caps, certificates of merit, adjudication panels, etc. The results of these perojects are eeasy to compare. Real tort reform will lower professional liability premiums and cut back on defensive medicine. There’s no need for demonstration projects to prove this.

By: Carter Wood

Carter Wood — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:19:32 +0000

My guess is he was giving an OK to support Enzi/Baucus language that had previously been defeated on pilot projects. I've got mentioning the topic on Shopfloor here.