Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Kern who wrote (119690)	8/27/2009 9:24:44 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

Thanks for finding that yet again, Paul. Never seems to get sufficiently implanted in the collective memory.

To: Paul Kern who wrote (119690)	8/27/2009 9:46:12 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541933

The problem isn't tort reform, it's the malpractice insurance companies. That could possibly be true (although its very unlikely to be just the malpractice insurance companies), but - "Study Says Malpractice Payouts Aren't Rising" doesn't show that to be the case. Leaving aside any doubts as to the study, and assuming its 100% accurate. Malpractice payouts not rising (whether you mean total, per incident, or even both) while malpractice insurance payments rising, is not enough by itself to indicate "malpractice insurance companies are the problem". 1 - They may have lost money or made a sub-normal profit with the previous rates, if in the past they underestimated the payouts. The higher rates may be a response to past high payouts, which would be warranted even if the payouts have not since increased. 2 - If the risk for high payouts was no so bad, the insurance companies would probably find it very difficult to maintain the higher rates. 3 - The lawsuits are the source of the need for the insurance, whatever the faults of the insurance companies, the lawyers who bring unreasonable suits, or sue of excessive damage created the root problem. Well maybe you can blame the clients as much or more than the lawyers. 4 - Dropping the "leaving aside doubts about the study" its only one study. 5 - It only covers 5 years, and only 15 companies (the later may or may not be important, depending on whether those 15 overwhelmingly dominate the market or not, if they sell 98% of the malpractice insurance then I suppose its ok to not have data on the rest, if they sell 40%? Not so much. The 5 year point is important either way, esp. in response to my point number one above, and perhaps point number 2. ------ The article was good enough to include the response from the insurance companies - "Insurance industry officials not only disagree with Mr. Angoff and the study, they discredit the methodology. They say that it is unfair to compare the premiums that insurance companies charge with claims paid, because it often takes 8 to 10 years for the claims to materialize, so companies have to set aside extra reserves. "It's a meaningless comparison that no respectable actuary would consider," said Lawrence Smarr, president of the Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group representing physician-owned insurance companies. Industry officials instead look at incurred losses, which include what insurance companies pay in claims as well as what they set aside for reserves to pay for future claims. The study, for its part, emphasizes that incurred losses are not payments the insurer has made but rather are estimates of claims. The reason malpractice insurance premiums are on the rise, Mr. Smarr says, is claim costs have risen as juries have awarded higher awards to plaintiffs, and insurance companies have used those claims as the justification for settling more cases... ..."We have a proven record of the fact that the premiums will come down when you get strong liability reform - that's why we're pushing caps on noneconomic damages," said Edward Hill, the president of the American Medical Association." nytimes.com