frankg, Thank you. I doubt I could find any study by anyone that someone, somewhere would not, at least, claim to find errors. Or another study that will countrdict it. I'll repeat, it is up to a judge and/or a jury to determine just what is a "frivilous lawsuit", and what is not.
You think it's a coincidence that the conter claims and challenges to the Dartmouth research you quote all come from doctors and/or their insurers? On Aug 9, 2:52 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hollywood, > > FYI, for those trying to get to the referenced article, the remainder > of the URL is; "not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/” > > I also noticed that towards the end of the article there are claims of > contradictions to Dartmouth's conclusions, which I've pasted below. To > me the bottom line is this; there are no doubt many other reasons why > premiums continue to rise, but I think there is also no doubt that > there are far too many frivolous lawsuits with awards that are > incredibly disproportionate to the offense. While many of the most > outrageous are actually hoaxes, supposedly created by the tort reform > crowd, there are more than enough verifiable cases to support the need > for reform. > > *** > Quoting from thewww.boston.comwebsite; > > ''We don't think this study will have much effect because there are > too many other studies that contradict it," said Dr. Donald Palmisano, > past president of the medical association and a surgeon in New > Orleans. > > He said other studies have found that doctors' malpractice premiums > increased more quickly in states without caps on pain and suffering, > bolstering the group's position that caps are a solution to the > problem. > > Dartmouth researchers drew their data from the National Practitioner > Data Bank, to which insurers are required to report payments made on > the behalf of physicians. The physician insurers association as well > as the federal government have criticized the data bank because > payments to hospitals are not reported -- unless a payment also was > made to a doctor in the case. Because of this, Chandra acknowledged, > his study could have slightly underestimated payments. > > Dr. Barry Manuel, ProMutual's chairman and a surgery professor at > Boston University, said that study's authors also did not account for > the rising cost of defending malpractice cases. Last year, ProMutual > paid $97.4 million to settle claims, plus another $20.5 million to > defend unsuccessful claims and $11 million to defend claims in which > the patient was successful in winning a monetary settlement or award. > > ''What we've seen at our company is there's been some moderation in > frequency of claims but the severity continues to rise," Manuel said. > > On Aug 8, 2:06 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zeb, > > > This article published in The Boston Globe in June 2005 seems to be > > typical. > > http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_docto... > > > "Re-igniting the medical malpractice debate, a new study by dartmouth > > College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial > > settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive growth > > in doctors insurance premiums. > > The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is > > the medical malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors > > premiums to compensate for falling investment returns". > > > And the economy in June 2005 was in great shape compared to today. > > > On Aug 8, 12:17 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Whatever you find that you think supports your assertion is fine with > > > me. I'm not a defender of insurance companies. I think its impossible > > > that they are not at least part of the problem. > > > > On Aug 8, 11:47 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > Give me time to research it a bit and I'll be happy to. However, what > > > > definition of "greed" will you agree on? Does me no good whatsoever to > > > > research without that. You'd simply say "well, that just business, not > > > > greed". How about this? How about if I show you market areas where > > > > payouts for medical malpractice suits have DECREASED yet premiums > > > > still continue to INCREASE? Let's set the ground rules first, then > > > > I'll play. > > > > > On Aug 8, 9:58 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >One factor in huge medical malpractice insurance premiums is >greedy > > > > > >insurance companies. How come no one wishes to > > > > > >address that? > > > > > > Well, you brought it up, why don't you address it? What facts and > > > > > figures that you have verified show a huge disparity between insurance > > > > > premium payments and payouts in malpractice lawsuits? > > > > > > On Aug 8, 9:59 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Richard, > > > > > > > There are doubtlessly many, many areas within healthcare where > > > > > > savings > > > > > > can be achieved. One factor in huge medical malpractice insurance > > > > > > premiums is greedy insurance companies. How come no one wishes to > > > > > > address that? > > > > > > It's a "frivilous" lawsuit when a judge or a jury SAYS it is, not > > > > > > before. > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 7:30 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hollywood - > > > > > > > > One of the places where there can be real cost savings wrung from > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > system is regarding the malpractice area. At present, huge > > > > > > > malpractice insurance policies are funded through the costs of > > > > > > > procedures. In addition, the risk management often results in > > > > > > > procedures that do little but innoculate the doctors. Tort > > > > > > > reform is > > > > > > > not designed to excuse incompetent doctors, but rather to end > > > > > > > frivilous lawsuits. I am certain that you under estimate how much > > > > > > > this adds to healthcare costs. It would shock you. > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 5:13 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Health Care reform will eliminate > > > > > > > > stupidity and > > > > > > > > incompetence within the health care field. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 3:42 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I will listen because I can't... How can I take Obama and > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Democrats serious about the seriousness concerning Health > > > > > > > > > Care reform > > > > > > > > > without Tort Reform??? Or perhaps will I be reported to the > > > > > > > > > WH > > > > > > > > > snitch line for actually expecting a debate on issues > > > > > > > > > surrounding > > > > > > > > > Health Care???- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
