Healthcare/Convince me

**shanbaum** · 07-13-2004, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by mrba

Shanbaum, does your .3% figure include the cost of malpractice insurance? When i reference lawsuits, I am including all costs incurred to the industry, not just awards in court.

Yes. According to the CBO report, malpractice costs are 2% of overall healthcare costs. Were one to wave a magic wand and make malpractice, malpractice insurance, and malpractice lawsuits go away, healthcare costs might reasonably be expected to decline by 2% (personally, I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath).

The Thorpe report found that doctors' malpractice insurance premiums were 17% lower in states which had statutory caps on awards for non-monetary damages. One might theorize therefrom, that were all states to adopt such caps, healthcare costs would be reduced by something like 17% of 2%, which is 0.34%.

The CBO report was, not surprisingly, more optimistic with regard to the possible savings from awards caps - estimating 0.4 to 0.5 percent.

The price of testicles notwithstanding.

**ikon44** · 07-13-2004, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by walt

Man wins $3.2M for lost testicle :(
Published by The Boston Herald, October 24, 1997

http://www.lubinandmeyer.com/cases/news_wins.html

can beat that, we have a lady that works for a bank, went for a drink with some
colleagues, one of them had a bit too much to drink, and told her she had nice
waps ( hav,nt heard them called that before), she took them to court for harrasment, they settled out of court.
1 MILLION POUNDS , THANK YOU VERY MUCH !!
for a million pounds they can call me what they like.

is it just me or is the world going mad.

**shanbaum** · 07-14-2004, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by walt

Man wins $3.2M for lost testicle

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news

**walt** · 07-14-2004, 12:15 PM

MORAL:

Never shoot off your testicles while in England.

**ikon44** · 07-14-2004, 02:01 PM

well, at least he will be firing blanks from now on !!

**walt** · 07-14-2004, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by ikon44

well, at least he will be firing blanks from now on !!

Not so for his new room mates. :D

**Steve Machol** · 07-18-2004, 02:58 PM

From:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ng_malpractice

By ROBERT W. BLACK, Associated Press Writer

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Wyoming residents will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to allow limits on certain damage awards in doctors' malpractice cases under a resolution signed Saturday by Gov. Dave Freudenthal.

The amendment, if approved by voters Nov. 2, would allow the Legislature to place a cap on non-economic losses such as for pain and suffering as a way to reduce the cost of doctors' insurance.

The resolution is seen by supporters as a way to stem rising malpractice rates and retain more doctors in Wyoming.

Opponents say not enough information is available to conclude that damage caps slow insurance rates, and others decried the potential loss of a victim's ability to recover full damages.

Trial lawyers are mounting what is expected to be an expensive media campaign against the resolution while doctors' groups are gearing up to support of the amendment.

"I believe that the people of this state will make a decision in November that will help to chart the health care agenda for the state of Wyoming," Senate President April Brimmer Kunz said at the signing of the resolution.

The House approved the measure Friday by a 54-6 vote and the Senate voted 22-7 in favor. Freudenthal signed the legislation on the sixth and final day of a special legislative session.

**walt** · 07-18-2004, 03:25 PM

WYOMING DEMOGRAPHICS

Total population - 501,242

Doctors - 1

Trial lawyers - 52,183

Democrats - 52,183

**Steve Machol** · 07-18-2004, 05:28 PM

Gee, that's clever and so original. ;)

Seriously though if this passes it'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, it will have on insurance and medical costs in Wyoming. The Insurance companies claim this is what they need to reduce costs. They may have an opportunity to prove it.

**chm2023** · 07-19-2004, 02:09 PM

Seems that a cap on pay outs should go hand in hand with a cap on premiums; that never seems to be part of the proposal. The inference being that trial lawyers need to be reigned in but insurance companies will naturally do the right thing and reduce premiums as a result of the legislation?

Call me cynical but I would prefer a legislated quid pro quo. This is highly reminiscent of the rationale for HMOs in the first place: there had to be a means to keep medical costs and fees in control. No one stopped to ask how to keep the HMOs and insurance company fees in control.