"Tweaking" A Patrick Push For "Tort Deform"

The Bucks County Courier Times tells us the following today (here)…

Patrick Murphy tried to reassure those who fear the health care reform working its way through Congress by referring to it as a "tweak."

(And by the way, I also posted here.)

During a telephone town hall on health care Wednesday night, the 8th District Democrat used the word several times to describe the effort he supports.

"We need to tweak it to make it a little bit better for those falling through the cracks," he said.

In his second major telephone event in three weeks, Murphy said for any plan to win his vote it must:

- Be deficit neutral.
- Benefit small business.
- Not allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.
- Close the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, where beneficiaries are responsible for the full cost of prescriptions drugs and 100 percent coverage for preventative screenings.

And he added a fifth mandatory element:

- Tort reform must be included.

(And by the way, Above Average Jane has more on the teletown hall here - good move to try and freeze out as many wingnuts as possible.)

As far as whether or not reform would be “deficit neutral,” this June story tells us that Obama told a physicians conference that it would be, with savings realized by instituting competitive bidding into Medicare Advantage, using Medicare reimbursements to help reduce preventable readmissions, and the evergreen “rooting out waste, abuse and fraud,” among other means (and by the way, concerning that $1 trillion number, see Myth #5 on this list).

And as far as health care’s impact on small businesses is concerned, this tells us the following…

(The White House Council of Economic Advisers) report concludes that the reforms outlined by both chambers of Congress in their competing proposals will benefit small businesses by lowering their health care costs and increasing coverage options for their workers. If the current system continues unchecked, "small business profits will shrink over time because of rising health-care costs that firms cannot fully pass on to workers," the report says, citing a recent analysis by the Small Business Majority, a pro-reform advocacy group.

That analysis found that rising health-care expenses will cost small companies an estimated $700 million in lost profits this year. By 2018, the annual cost of lost profits will reach $12 billion, according to the Small Business Majority's forecasts.

But in the short term, reform will be even more expensive, according to the same analysis. A reform plan similar to the one proposed by the House would reduce small business profits by a whopping $6.5 billion this year. It's not until 2013 that the reformed system's savings would increase, rather than reduce, small business profits.

Hmm, that’s a tough nut to crack, indeed (though, as the story states, doing nothing isn't an alternative). We’ll see.

And of course, closing the infamous Medicare Part D “donut hole” and not allowing discrimination for pre-existing conditions are a given (though, to be fair, those in good health are bound to pick up the tab to one degree or another for those who aren’t, which I have no problem with, by the way, depending on how that’s managed in the bill that is eventually signed into law… we have a precedent for that sort of thing in Medicare, VA and the SCHIP programs, with Medicare treating an older population with more critical needs on balance, so, despite the town hall nonsense, it’s not as if we don’t know how to do this sort of thing in this country).

However, the fifth element stated by Murphy caught my attention, and that was the dreaded “tort reform.”

Now I believe Patrick is in earnest here, and I think he’s genuinely trying to do the right thing (more of what he has accomplished and what he supports on health care is accessible from this link – hat tip to Above Average Jane again for that one.)

Also, I think he’s taking a lead from the Obama Administration on tort reform (I didn’t know this until now, but as of last May, the president was actually willing to negotiate with the Repugs on curbing malpractice awards, as noted here, until the “Party of No” did what it does best…that would have been at least as bad of an idea as anything proposed by Max Baucus...R-MT, as Fix Noise refers to him – however, as noted here, it looks like the Administration is still trying to keep that option alive).

As noted here, though, tort reform really wouldn't lower health care costs – as Anne Underwood of the New York Times tells us…

According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

Also, the Trial Lawyers blog tells us here that, on average, 98,000 people die a year due to medical malpractice (yes, they have a financial interest here, but if you suffer a catastrophic injury, who else is going to represent you?).

And really, ladies and gentlemen and boys and girls, if you knew that you would suffer chronic pain for the rest of your life due to a doctor’s mistake (assume you were in your 20s), how amenable would YOU be to a judge or jury telling you that you’re looking at, say, a million dollar cap for a problem with a compressed vertebrae? You want to know how quickly you would burn through that million dollars?

To look at an example of where tort reform was signed into law…and I’ll bet you’ll never guess, huh?...just look at Texas (noted here). After tort reform was passed, doctors “flocked” there, as the story tells us. And insurance premiums nearly doubled anyway!

With respect, Congressman, please do not expend too much energy on this aspect of health care legislation. It is only going to further insulate health care professionals who reside in their own “secret society” anyway. And if you think it’s going to win over any right-wing converts, just read the utterly bilious, propagandistic, uninformed, badly written (and badly spelled) comments to the Courier Times story, and you’ll have your answer.