That is NOT what the 1999 IOM report stated. Why don’t you try actually READING the report instead of ATLA talking points. How about also actually READING the medical journals of the era to determine where the data for 44,000-98,000 (not “100,000”) deaths per year from medical error came from and how controversial it was (and is). How about actually READING other articles such as the 2001 JAMA paper “Estimating Hospital Deaths to Medical Errors: Preventability is in the Eye of the Reviewer” (JAMA. 2001;286(4):415-420),which concludes that previous interpretations of medical errors statisics are probably misleading. But that would actually involve becoming educated on the subject rather than ATLA (or the American Association for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, or whatever doubletalk name they now call themselves) talking points . A “fair” system is not the present in which dueling experts/lawyers paid by the defense/plantiff try to confuse the jury anymore than tort reform limitations that inhibt the truly injured from seeking compensation. A “fair” system would involve medical courts and require unbiased MD’s (serving the court) to review the data and determine if negligence occurred. Requirement to serve the court (for a fee) can be made as part of state licensing. A review system of reviewer MD’s can be set up to ensure fairness and impartiality. But this system would leave you out Bob with your 33%-50% cut. We both know you and your brethran will make sure it never happens.

PS: If you know ANYTHING about medicine you know that certain specialties (neurosurgery, OB) have a much higher chance of malpractice. Your statisitic is meaningless unless the 2-3% number analyzed by specialty. But then again that involves research and not ATLA talking points.

Sean Higgins’ article quotes me today on the lameness of the Reid health bill’s allocation of $50 million to liability demonstration projects carefully screened to avoid anything that might bother the trial bar. (Earlier at Overlawyered and at Point …

Both sides – again, both sides – have a lot of cute lens to look at this issue that just ring false to common sense. They are intended to mislead.

UPDATE I now see Walter already reported at Overlawyered an observer’s analysis of the language, finding it a “grant program run by trial lawyers for the benefit of trial lawyers.” A much more detailed dissection of the language than what’s……

Overlawyered passes along a misleading description of the "tort reform" provisions in the Senate health care bill from an anonymous Capitol Hill source: The “tort reform” section of Senator Reid’s substitute amendment is not…

“(II) Health care providers and health care organizations” and “(III) Attorneys with expertise in representing patients and health care providers” and “(IV) Medical malpractice insurers.” Oh, the horror of including all stakeholders.

Saying that cost isn’t a factor is also flat-out wrong, since the plan’s effectiveness is measured by factors like “(C) the disposition of disputes and claims, including the length of time and estimated costs to all parties” and “(D) the medical liability environment.” Similarly, to receive a grant, states have to show how the plan “(E) improves access to liability insurance.”

But it’s not like your source on Capitol Hill could possibly be misrepresenting the bill in order to push an agenda or anything…