Cynthia Meyer, Staff Writer
Ideology: Conservative | Writing from: Washington, DC
In August, Howard Dean exposed the shockingly honest truthabout why tort reform has not been included in any of the Democrats’ health care bills this year. “When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that,” he said, “the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on.”
Just as they did in 2004 after Dean first revealed his recurring streak of insanity, the Democrats hit their heads in humiliation over his remarks. They are trying to hide the fact that they are playing politics, and succumbing to the same lobbyists and interest groups that Obama promised he would remove from political discourse.
The simple reality is that there is no valid reason why tort reform is not included in any of the recent legislation—Oh, except that malpractice trial lawyers would no longer sprinkle the Democrats’ eager hands with lush campaign donations.
The broken promises of Obama’s presidency are growing stale. He promised transparency? We are constantly getting closed doors. He promised to cut the deficit in half? The massive spending bills in Congress say otherwise. He promised bipartisanship? Republicans have had no voice in the health care debate. Their sensible amendments are rejected, such as amendments ensuring that abortions or illegal immigrants would not be covered. They are accused of having “no solutions” to the health care crisis, when Republican solutions are what will actually fix the health care industry.
Saying that Republicans have no solutions to the health care crisis is a flat out lie, and an attempt at distraction. The Democrats want the American people to think that there are no other solutions but their plan. They are trying to portray health care as so unfixable, beyond the power of the free market, that the only answer is the hand of government. They want us to believe that government will make it better, that we need the beaurocracy, that we are dependent on the politicians we elect for our basic health needs. They treat us as if we areincapable of doing this on our own, and they lie, telling us a government overhaul will actually help competition prosper (…Do they actually think we are going to buy that?).
When Republicans offer ideas like providing incentives to physicians to expand care and lower costs, allowing state insurance companies to compete with each other, offering tax credits to families with modest incomes, or enacting tort reform, the Democrats dismiss them. They are not even discussed, because discussing the legitimacy of these ideas would discredit their own.
Realistically, with the Democrats’ plans for such drastic changes in the health care system, the numerous forms of legislation in Congress right now will never become law. If we are going to make any progress in fixing health care, it will not be in a sweeping government overhaul.
If President Obama wanted to take credit for real progress in health care, he would first initiate a bill that would focus on tort reform. This would not fix the entire system, of course, but billions of dollars of waste would be cut out of the system ($54 billion would be saved, according to the CBO – compare that with the $2.4 trillion Obamacare would cost, according to the Lewin Group) and it would pave the way for additional cost-cutting solutions without forcing government beaurocracy into our hospitals and doctors’ offices.
The average medical malpractice claim takes five years to resolve, and the majority of dollars spent (60 cents out of every dollar) goes to trial lawyers and administrative costs. The costs from frivolous lawsuits faced by doctors are passed down to consumers and employees, and if tort reform were pursued, prices would drop. This is just one way medical coverage could be expanded without government force.
HOW TEXAS CAN SERVE AS A MODEL FOR TORT REFORM IN THE U.S.
Because of the thriving economy and friendly business environment, Texas welcomes 1,000 new residents every day. In 2008, 70 percent of all jobs created in the United States were created in Texas. It is the home of more Fortune 500 companies than any other state, with the healthiest housing market and a rainy-day fund of $9 billion—all with no income tax. Needless to say, Texas is showing far less signs of being in a recession than the rest of the country.
Much of the success Texas has been seeing in the past decade is due to tort reform. Before it was enacted, doctors were struggling with increasing costs and lower compensation from insurance companies, along with malpractice suits demanding time and money from their practice. Consequently, many doctors were retiring or leaving Texas, taking away jobs and quality health care from the state. This was recognized as a state emergency, and extensive tort reform was put in place. It put a cap on non-economic damages, such as “pain and suffering” claims, of $250,000. It also required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claim. Prior to this reform, the average suit award was $1.21 million. Now it is $880,000. Cutting this unnecessary waste in the courts has proved to be a success in the Texas economy and health care system.
Medical liability reforms allow doctors to cut costs and increase quality care by saving money from fewer frivolous lawsuits. Since tort reform, so many doctors have moved to Texas that they have had trouble keeping up with license requests. Insurance companies have also relocated to Texas, providing for increased competition in the industry, which has done a great deal to lower costs and broaden coverage.
The benefits of tort reform are shared by all—doctors, their employees, and their patients. The only players who are hurt in this are trial lawyers. Are we going to let trial lawyers of frivolous lawsuits prevent us from enacting real solutions to health care? More importantly, are we going to let the Democrats in power continue to prevent the country from embracing tort reform because of typical Washington politics?
Democrats: Cutting the cost of health care while maintaining competition and quality is more important than campaign contributions from trial lawyers.

Awesome.
The rising price of healthcare is in part due to the fact that doctors must cover their butt whenever they see a patient. If a patient comes in with what is obviously a just a headache, the doctor used to just talk to them for a minute and send then home with a Tylenol. Now they must go through the whole nine yards of “defensive medicine” and order medical procedures such as MRI’s just to make sure the patient does not have a .01% case of a more serious illness. Of course the cost gets passed on to the patient, and he ends up paying $3,000 just for the doctor to say what he already knew. It is also no coincidence that 7 out of 10 patients are given or prescribed some sort of medicine when they visit a doctor nowadays. The doctors must protect themselves and say “hey I did everything I could”
“..recurring streak of insanity”
Sorry, but I stopped reading after that extremely juvenile description of Governor Dean.
Tyler, it was a joke.
I suggest you keep reading.
I had no idea tort reform was even an option!
We should be trying tort reform for at least a trial-run before we get into this public option business.
Great article Ms. Meyer!
For the most part, I agree with your desire to see tort reform as a primary component in healthcare reform. However, as most tort laws applicable to medical situations are state laws, it would be difficult to address those issues in a federal bill. Procedural notes aside, my main desire is to comment on one point you make:
In general, the malpractice lawsuits in this country are ridiculous and do much more harm than good to the healthcare system. However, there is one specific point in the Texas reforms which worries me. The “pain and suffering cap,” enacted with the intent to avoid runaway juries awarding excessive payouts out of vindictive motives, limits the victims of malpractice cases to a quarter of a million dollars in all situations.
I had a teacher in high school who went in for an operation during which a surgeon carelessly mishandled a scalpel and caused irreparable lung damage which has forced her to carry an oxygen tank around with her for the rest of her life. Beyond that, any amount of physical exertion that would raise her respiratory rate could be highly dangerous. That means she can’t play with her kids, she cannot be intimate with her husband, and she has a lot of trouble continuing to do her job, though she cannot afford to quit. Is all of that for the rest of her life really only worth $250,000? In Texas, yes it is. This is a situation where she deserves far more than a quarter of a million dollars as the doctor is to blame for significant pain and suffering which will last the rest of her life.
With that in mind, I would recommend this: Rather than a strict line for a maximum award, give the authority to determine the amount of the pain and suffering award to a judge, rather than an untrained jury. These judges are in their positions because they are trusted to be prudent in their custodianship of justice. Set guidelines for them to determine the appropriate amount, but do not restrict it to a certain number so that cases with true merit are able to be adjudicated fairly.
This way, we can use tort reform to bring down one of the most out-of-control costs of healthcare, but in a responsible way.
It seems in her case she could have sued for tangible losses (lost wages and medical fees) on top of additional pain and suffering, which should net her a pretty solid sum. Either way, no amount of money will get her back her life. But I am open to discuss many options about tort reform since anything is better than what we have now.
1) Juries have no role in settling malpractice disputes as these should go to review boards.
2) Juries do have a role in gross negligence which is criminal and not tort
3) Half of what I order, prescribe, incur costs doing, evaluating and performing is to achieve 100% perfection in patient care.
4) The law of diminishing returns applies when taking patient care from 99% to 100% efficacy and could be construed as covering my butt, aiming for the impossible, and satisfying unrealistic patient expectations (unless “someone else” is carrying those costs of course).
5) Since when does cash alleviate pain and suffering? What a miserable attempt to alter the physical realities of human existence.
6) Physician charges are capped by government price controls through Medicare. Why are not trial lawyers fees also capped?