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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (537824)	12/21/2009 12:39:07 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575973

>Here is a more recent study, from this year, which was done with an actual SURVEY: So the study you posted was conducted by asking physicians whether tort limits would change their behavior in terms of defensive medicine? You don't see the conflict of interest? But some academics who study the system are less certain. One critic is Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” who believes that making the legal system less receptive to medical malpractice lawsuits will not significantly affect the costs of medical care. He spoke with the freelance writer Anne Underwood. Q. Tell me more about the 1996 study. A. It was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics by Stanford economist Daniel Kessler and Dr. Mark McClellan, who was head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President George W. Bush. For two types of heart disease — heart attacks and ischemic heart disease — the authors found that 5 to 7 percent of the additional costs in Florida, compared to other states with lower medical malpractice liability, could be attributed to defensive medicine. This was based on 1980s data. Using that estimate, some politicians used to say that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. But you can’t blindly say that all diseases are the same as heart disease, and if you want a nationwide estimate, you can’t say every state is the same as Florida. Furthermore, the second study, published in 2002 in The Journal of Public Economics, found that much of the difference disappeared as managed care took hold in Florida in the 1990s. Q. But many doctors complain about having to practice defensive medicine. A. Doctors will say that. But when you dig down, you find that what’s really happening is that doctors tend to do what other doctors around them do. They go along with the prevailing standard of care in their region — which in many cases isn’t even a state, but a city or county. Or check out the Kessler and McClellan study -- pretty much the previously acknowledged experts on the subject (although CBO doesn't think so LOL) which found that in '05 the cost of defensive medicine was between $100B and $178B/year. In an earlier post you suggested that, as a result of tort reform, the savings would be in the $200B range. According to this estimate then defensive medicine would be cut to $0 as a result. Does this sound credible to you?