According to Californians Allied for Patient Protection (CAPP), as policymakers and others debate the future of medical liability insurance in California, a new study by former Legislative Analyst William Hamm and two others reveals California’s landmark medical liability reform law, aimed at soaring malpractice insurance costs, has been far more effective in controlling health care costs than Proposition 103, which targeted insurance rates.
“Proposition 103 sought to control insurance rates but not malpractice insurance costs,” Hamm said. “Our analysis shows that MICRA’s $250,000 ceiling cap on non-economic damages and not Proposition 103, accounts for the relatively low growth in medical malpractice insurance costs in California since 1988.
“The evidence shows that Proposition 103 cannot explain the relatively modest growth in malpractice premiums in California since 1988. MICRA must be given credit for this favorable trend,” Hamm said.
The full study is available for review at www.micra.org/News.htm.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.