Third Debate: Your Comments

The REAL reason insurance rates have gone up is because the insurance companies just aren't making the return they need of off investing the premiums in order to keep the high rate of ROI they are used to. Blaming it on either doctors or lawyers is simply foolish.

Cycloptichorn

I simply can't picture a way for insurance companies to cause Maryland to be facing a loss of 40% of its physicians. That's lawyering.

That IS ridiculous.

The reason the rates have gone up is that the investments made by the insurance companies have tanked.

Severely. Part of it is due to 9/11, part due to poor management.

Most insurance companies break even on the payin-payout flow. You don't even seem to disagree with me on that one.

Here's where you resort to circular logic:

Quote:

Most of the money they take in goes back out in the form of payments to doctors and as staff overhead. Payouts contribute the majority of where the money goes. As doctors rates increase, insurance companies must raise their rates to stay profitable... I know that 's a bad word for liberals, profit, but that why companies stay in business.

So: As doctors rates increase, insurance companies raise rates accordingly.

But WHY are the doctor's rates increasing? Because the INSURANCE has gone up so much in the last few years, and this effects every aspect of the industry, from medicine production to payroll, everything!

So, according to you, the doctor's rates increase, this makes insurance go up, which makes the rates increase, which makes insurance go up.... it's bad logic.

The REAL reason insurance rates have gone up is because the insurance companies just aren't making the return they need of off investing the premiums in order to keep the high rate of ROI they are used to. Blaming it on either doctors or lawyers is simply foolish.

Cycloptichorn

C'mon JustWonders! Get your head out of the clouds. What could Paul Rubin know about anything? He is obviously nothing more than a Republican shill. He works for Emory University for gosh sakes!

Paul H. Rubin is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics in the Economics Department of Emory University and a Professor of Law and Economics at the School of Law.

Professor Rubin was Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, Director of Advertising Economics at the Federal Trade Commission, and Vice-President of Glassman-Oliver Economic Consultants, Inc., a litigation consulting firm in Washington.

Medical Malpractice
The AMA does the insurance industry's bidding
by Paul Waldman, Editor-in-Chief
6.15.04

The nation's malpractice attorneys just dodged a bullet: it will not, as it turns out, be the official policy of the American Medical Association to deny them and their spouses medical care. At the AMA's annual meeting in Chicago, the most controversial proposal was one to do just that. After some bad publicity, the proposal was denounced, and the doctor who proposed it, J. Chris Hawk of South Carolina, asked that it be withdrawn.

But while Dr. Hawk's idea may have struck the assembled doctors as going too far, the fact remains that the organization representing America's doctors - and many of their rank-and-file - have decided that nothing is more important than making sure that victims of medical malpractice can't recover more than a limited sum for their pain and suffering. As the AMA's web site proclaims, "Medical Liability Reform is AMA's No. 1 Legislative Priority." Call me naïve, but I would have thought some other issues - like, say, providing health insurance for the 44 million Americans who don't have it - might rank higher.

But the AMA has decided two things: first, there is a medical malpractice insurance crisis in America, and second, the only thing that will solve the problem is capping the amount that people can be awarded in a successful lawsuit against a doctor to $250,000 in non-economic (i.e. pain and suffering) damages. The association supplies doctors with a "Physician Action Kit" with talking points and ways to influence their patients, including sample letters and wall posters advocating damage caps.

Why is the AMA stuck on damage caps? Simply put, they've gotten in bed with the insurance industry to play America's doctors for suckers.

A 2002 report by a congressional advisory commission reported that on average physicians pay only 3% of their revenue for malpractice insurance. Even in OB-GYN, the specialty with the highest rates, doctors paid only 6.7% of their revenue for insurance. Nonetheless, malpractice insurance costs have risen dramatically in the past few years.

The insurance industry has convinced doctors that the reason is out-of-control jury awards in medical malpractice cases. But the facts tell a different story. According to a 2003 study by USA Today, less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning trial verdict. And while the amounts paid in malpractice claims have risen at the same rate as medical costs generally, the rates insurers charge doctors for coverage doesn't have anything to do with lawsuits.

So what determines malpractice insurance rates? The economy, or more specifically, the stock and bond markets. When insurance companies' investments in stocks and bonds make them lots of money - as they did in the 1990s - they lower premiums on doctors. When they don't make as much - as they haven't in the Bush economy - they raise premiums. (You can read more about this here.)

Since there's nothing insurance companies like less than paying out claims, they love the idea of capping damage awards. But they also knew that an insurance company trying to keep victimized patients from getting compensation doesn't present the most sympathetic face in a political debate. So they knew what they had to do: get doctors to carry water for them.

So they enlisted the support of the AMA; the AMA tells its members that their high premiums are caused by lawsuits; and the doctors tell their patients that unless they get on board with damage caps, their doctors will go out of business.

Completing the circle are the Republican legislators who pass laws limiting medical liability, which are now on the books in many states (and no, these laws haven't resulted in lower premiums). Despite their alleged devotion to the principle of personal responsibility, these legislators believe that doctors shouldn't be responsible when they make deadly mistakes.

As many as 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. And the kinds of errors that result in malpractice lawsuits aren't inevitable; a study by Public Citizen found that 5% of all doctors are responsible for over half the malpractice claims in the United States. They found doctors who had dozens of malpractice claims lodged against them yet were never disciplined by their states' medical boards. If the medical community would do something about the incompetents in its ranks, the number of malpractice cases - and the number of patients injured and killed - would fall dramatically.

Yet the AMA and the insurance industry want us to believe that the real problem is with the patients. The AMA has worked against the interests of patients before - after all, they opposed the creation of Medicare, joined with Republicans to kill Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993 (which, despite its many flaws, would have tackled the problem of the uninsured), and supported the recent Pharmaceutical Industry Profit Maximization Act, also known as the Medicare prescription drug bill. And with their laser-like focus on limiting medical liability, the AMA has turned itself into the medical arm of the GOP.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The REAL reason insurance rates have gone up is because the insurance companies just aren't making the return they need of off investing the premiums in order to keep the high rate of ROI they are used to. Blaming it on either doctors or lawyers is simply foolish.

Cycloptichorn

I simply can't picture a way for insurance companies to cause Maryland to be facing a loss of 40% of its physicians. That's lawyering.

Okay, McG, are you claiming that insurance companies do not make their money off of investing the premiums they take in? Because, yaknow, that's how insurance works.

Here, read for yourself:

Quote:

Medical Malpractice
The AMA does the insurance industry's bidding
by Paul Waldman, Editor-in-Chief
6.15.04

The nation's malpractice attorneys just dodged a bullet: it will not, as it turns out, be the official policy of the American Medical Association to deny them and their spouses medical care. At the AMA's annual meeting in Chicago, the most controversial proposal was one to do just that. After some bad publicity, the proposal was denounced, and the doctor who proposed it, J. Chris Hawk of South Carolina, asked that it be withdrawn.

But while Dr. Hawk's idea may have struck the assembled doctors as going too far, the fact remains that the organization representing America's doctors - and many of their rank-and-file - have decided that nothing is more important than making sure that victims of medical malpractice can't recover more than a limited sum for their pain and suffering. As the AMA's web site proclaims, "Medical Liability Reform is AMA's No. 1 Legislative Priority." Call me naïve, but I would have thought some other issues - like, say, providing health insurance for the 44 million Americans who don't have it - might rank higher.

But the AMA has decided two things: first, there is a medical malpractice insurance crisis in America, and second, the only thing that will solve the problem is capping the amount that people can be awarded in a successful lawsuit against a doctor to $250,000 in non-economic (i.e. pain and suffering) damages. The association supplies doctors with a "Physician Action Kit" with talking points and ways to influence their patients, including sample letters and wall posters advocating damage caps.

Why is the AMA stuck on damage caps? Simply put, they've gotten in bed with the insurance industry to play America's doctors for suckers.

A 2002 report by a congressional advisory commission reported that on average physicians pay only 3% of their revenue for malpractice insurance. Even in OB-GYN, the specialty with the highest rates, doctors paid only 6.7% of their revenue for insurance. Nonetheless, malpractice insurance costs have risen dramatically in the past few years.

The insurance industry has convinced doctors that the reason is out-of-control jury awards in medical malpractice cases. But the facts tell a different story. According to a 2003 study by USA Today, less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning trial verdict. And while the amounts paid in malpractice claims have risen at the same rate as medical costs generally, the rates insurers charge doctors for coverage doesn't have anything to do with lawsuits.

So what determines malpractice insurance rates? The economy, or more specifically, the stock and bond markets. When insurance companies' investments in stocks and bonds make them lots of money - as they did in the 1990s - they lower premiums on doctors. When they don't make as much - as they haven't in the Bush economy - they raise premiums. (You can read more about this here.)

Since there's nothing insurance companies like less than paying out claims, they love the idea of capping damage awards. But they also knew that an insurance company trying to keep victimized patients from getting compensation doesn't present the most sympathetic face in a political debate. So they knew what they had to do: get doctors to carry water for them.

So they enlisted the support of the AMA; the AMA tells its members that their high premiums are caused by lawsuits; and the doctors tell their patients that unless they get on board with damage caps, their doctors will go out of business.

Completing the circle are the Republican legislators who pass laws limiting medical liability, which are now on the books in many states (and no, these laws haven't resulted in lower premiums). Despite their alleged devotion to the principle of personal responsibility, these legislators believe that doctors shouldn't be responsible when they make deadly mistakes.

As many as 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. And the kinds of errors that result in malpractice lawsuits aren't inevitable; a study by Public Citizen found that 5% of all doctors are responsible for over half the malpractice claims in the United States. They found doctors who had dozens of malpractice claims lodged against them yet were never disciplined by their states' medical boards. If the medical community would do something about the incompetents in its ranks, the number of malpractice cases - and the number of patients injured and killed - would fall dramatically.

Yet the AMA and the insurance industry want us to believe that the real problem is with the patients. The AMA has worked against the interests of patients before - after all, they opposed the creation of Medicare, joined with Republicans to kill Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993 (which, despite its many flaws, would have tackled the problem of the uninsured), and supported the recent Pharmaceutical Industry Profit Maximization Act, also known as the Medicare prescription drug bill. And with their laser-like focus on limiting medical liability, the AMA has turned itself into the medical arm of the GOP.

For those who didn't read the article: the rates of malpractice insurance are tied to stock and bond performance, NOT to malpractice claims! Under the Bush economy, stocks and bonds haven't done so well (part of this is because of 9/11, part because voodoo economics doesn't work) and THAT'S why rates go up.

The 'malpractice' argument is pure bullsh*t. The amount of money paid out for malpractice doesn't even come close to the amount put into investments.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

Paul Waldman is the Editor-in-Chief of The Gadflyer. Formerly the associate director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Waldman is the co-author of The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World (Oxford University Press, 2002) and the co-editor of Electing the President 2000: The Insiders' View (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). His writing has also been featured in the American Prospect, the Washington Post, and Salon.com, as well as many scholarly journals. Waldman's latest book, Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why The Media Didn't Tell You, was released in early 2004.

But is that the reason why premiums are rising so much? No, says Jamie Court. Court directs the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. He says the reason isn't huge jury awards and frivolous lawsuits; it's business practices on the part of insurance companies.

Mr. JAMIE COURT (Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights): Insurance companies gamble. They gamble on Wall Street, and that's how they make most of their money. And when investment opportunities are good on Wall Street, when the rate of return is 30 percent a year, malpractice insurers will cut their rates very low.

NEIGHMOND: In order to attract more customers. But when investments are off, either in stocks or bonds, and insurers lose money, Court says companies do a turn-about.

Mr. COURT: They have to compensate for those investment losses by raising premiums dramatically, particularly because they've been lowering them when investment rates are good. So premiums can skyrocket for many physicians by 20, 30 percent a year. In the worst specialties, maybe it's a hundred percent.