Skip to main content

Diigo Home

National Journal Online - Health Care Push Revives Tort Reform Debate - The Diigo Meta page

www.nationaljournal.com/...no_20090831_5711.php - Cached - Annotated View

Elena LaVictoire's personal annotations on this page

mydomesticchurch
Mydomesticchurch bookmarked on 2009-09-09 current events health care

Tort reform is one step that could help reduce health care costs.

As a woman, I know that this has affected me personally. My first and my last Cesareans were done purely for medicolegal reasons. They had nothing to do with my ability to birth my baby naturally. And even though my first Cesarean was 20 years ago, it seems not much has changed. Recently one of my young friends, a mom in her 20s was pressured into having another Cesarean because her doctor simply wouldn't here of her trying a natural labor and delivery.

So this is the type of issue that affects the lives of women on a very personal and real level today!! And it's one President Obama needs to address this evening.

  • Linda Lipsen, senior vice president of public affairs with the American Association for Justice, said those figures mean tort reform just isn't worth it.



    "The current health care debate is focused on two tenets: lowering costs while improving care and covering the uninsured," Lipsen said. "Changing the legal system will not accomplish these goals and only make it harder for those injured by medical negligence, through no fault of their own, to seek legal recourse."



    However, the CBO estimate did not account for defensive spending, which most proponents say eats up the real costs. In its 2003 report, HHS estimated that, between malpractice costs and defensive medicine, reasonable tort reforms would save the federal government between $28.1 billion and $50.6 billion a year. Projected out over 10 years, that's far more than CBO-estimated savings for replacing fee-for-service with bundled payments ($18.6 billion), setting up a health IT system ($34 billion) or a tax on the wealthy or insurance companies (about $100 billion).



    "Even if it costs 2 cents, why wouldn't we want to eliminate those costs?" asked Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association. "In the grand scheme of things, it's not the mother lode of costs, but it's certainly not insignificant."

This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 09 Sep 2009, by Elena LaVictoire.

  • 09 Sep 09
    mydomesticchurch
    Elena LaVictoire

    Tort reform is one step that could help reduce health care costs.

    As a woman, I know that this has affected me personally. My first and my last Cesareans were done purely for medicolegal reasons. They had nothing to do with my ability to birth my baby naturally. And even though my first Cesarean was 20 years ago, it seems not much has changed. Recently one of my young friends, a mom in her 20s was pressured into having another Cesarean because her doctor simply wouldn't here of her trying a natural labor and delivery.

    So this is the type of issue that affects the lives of women on a very personal and real level today!! And it's one President Obama needs to address this evening.

    current events health care

    • Linda Lipsen, senior vice president of public affairs with the American Association for Justice, said those figures mean tort reform just isn't worth it.



      "The current health care debate is focused on two tenets: lowering costs while improving care and covering the uninsured," Lipsen said. "Changing the legal system will not accomplish these goals and only make it harder for those injured by medical negligence, through no fault of their own, to seek legal recourse."



      However, the CBO estimate did not account for defensive spending, which most proponents say eats up the real costs. In its 2003 report, HHS estimated that, between malpractice costs and defensive medicine, reasonable tort reforms would save the federal government between $28.1 billion and $50.6 billion a year. Projected out over 10 years, that's far more than CBO-estimated savings for replacing fee-for-service with bundled payments ($18.6 billion), setting up a health IT system ($34 billion) or a tax on the wealthy or insurance companies (about $100 billion).



      "Even if it costs 2 cents, why wouldn't we want to eliminate those costs?" asked Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association. "In the grand scheme of things, it's not the mother lode of costs, but it's certainly not insignificant."