Tort Reform, Good for Business Disastrous for Consumers
If someone would listen to the corporate lobbyist, they will spin their tale of woe, that all of the evils in the world are a direct result of tort law. There is a firm belief or at least the profession that, if the rights of compensation for wrongful acts, are taken away from the consumer, the price for goods and services will be reduced. Companies and Professional Organizations are spending millions of dollars every year to convince legislators that the rights of the citizens are second to the profits of business. Sadly, these representatives of business and industry are misrepresenting the truth and legislators are starting to believe them.
The Insurance Industry and the American Medical Association( AMA), two of the largest spenders for tort reform also spin some of the best tales. Fortunately for the consumer, there is evidence mounting which dispels the smoke and shines a light upon the truth.
Malpractice Myths:
The AMA and Insurance Industry have been on a campaign to convince legislators that 1: There is a malpractice insurance crisis which is making insurance too expensive for doctors and that due to this crisis to many doctors are leaving their profession and placing patients at the risk of no medical care. 2: The costs of litigation and awards in states where caps do not exist are the root cause for the crisis.
August 2003, the General Accounting Office ( GAO ) completed a study which showed that the AMA and other medical groups exaggerated and possibly created the illusion of a crisis when none existed. The GAO studied five states ( Florida, Mississippi, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada ) the AMA had designated as crisis states.
In Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, where the AMA reported a loss of physicians, the GAO study found that the number of physicians had increased slightly and several physicians who reportedly had retired or left were still in practice and accepting new patients. Some areas of the states had a loss in physicians, but this was in rural areas and attributed to economic circumstances and rural characteristics. The loss of physicians however did not prevent people in the area from receiving necessary medical care.
The GAO study also showed while there was some rate increase relief in states with caps, it also noted that some states without caps experienced lower rate increases than those with caps. It was also noted that factors such as, reduction in investment income due to market conditions also contributed to the reduced profits and higher rates charged by the insurance companies.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Tort Reform, Good for Business Disastrous for Consumers
If someone would listen to the corporate lobbyist, they will spin their tale of woe, that all of the evils in the world are a direct result of tort law. There is a firm belief or at least the profession that, if the rights of compensation for wrongful acts, are taken away from the consumer, the price for goods and services will be reduced. Companies and Professional Organizations are spending millions of dollars every year to convince legislators that the rights of the citizens are second to the profits of business. Sadly, these representatives of business and industry are misrepresenting the truth and legislators are starting to believe them.
The Insurance Industry and the American Medical Association( AMA), two of the largest spenders for tort reform also spin some of the best tales. Fortunately for the consumer, there is evidence mounting which dispels the smoke and shines a light upon the truth.
Malpractice Myths:
The AMA and Insurance Industry have been on a campaign to convince legislators that 1: There is a malpractice insurance crisis which is making insurance too expensive for doctors and that due to this crisis to many doctors are leaving their profession and placing patients at the risk of no medical care. 2: The costs of litigation and awards in states where caps do not exist are the root cause for the crisis.
August 2003, the General Accounting Office ( GAO ) completed a study which showed that the AMA and other medical groups exaggerated and possibly created the illusion of a crisis when none existed. The GAO studied five states ( Florida, Mississippi, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada ) the AMA had designated as crisis states.
In Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, where the AMA reported a loss of physicians, the GAO study found that the number of physicians had increased slightly and several physicians who reportedly had retired or left were still in practice and accepting new patients. Some areas of the states had a loss in physicians, but this was in rural areas and attributed to economic circumstances and rural characteristics. The loss of physicians however did not prevent people in the area from receiving necessary medical care.
The GAO study also showed while there was some rate increase relief in states with caps, it also noted that some states without caps experienced lower rate increases than those with caps. It was also noted that factors such as, reduction in investment income due to market conditions also contributed to the reduced profits and higher rates charged by the insurance companies.