This is a rewrite of an earlier editorial length article on the subject of ‘tort reform.’ In the prior version, I stayed within the framing of those seeking to limit the liability of doctors and insurers. By challenging the frame, I think the argument becomes more powerful. The facts don’t struggle against the opposing frame, they support the new one. Rhetorical figures become more powerful and invested with clearer values. This is not however a complete reframing of the issue; it is only a negative frame. It creates an alternative way to view the opposing policy, but it does not create a solution. The packaging of the right way to approach medical malpractice policy awaits another day. That framing excercise is harder because the policy package is not simplistic – rather it is a complex package of reforms which is difficult to summarize. The reason I’m republishing this article, is a Harvard School of Public Health study of malpractice claims was just published that demonstrates very clearly that the problem of unmertiorious claims is vastly overstated, and is not addressed by arbitrary award caps. Also, I was adding some material to Utah Senate candidate Pete Ashdown’s wiki on health care, and was thinking about the issue of ‘tort reform’.

The medical malpractice (med-mal) insurance industry, some politicians, and even some misguided doctors, have of late been misleading the public about the efficacy of caps on med-mal awards, a.k.a. ‘tort reform,’ to contain healthcare costs. These people have generated a deluge of coordinated letters to editor and public relations events in Arizona recently. They are telling the public that med-mal awards are driving the high inflation rates in the health care sector we’ve seen over the past several years. But the truth is that their so-called ‘tort reform’ is just a free ride for insurers and incompetent doctors on the backs of seriously injured patients.

‘Tort Reform’ is really nothing more than arbitrary compensation caps protecting doctors who harm or kill their patients and the companies who insure them. Policy makers actually interested in reforming the torts process would advocate for ways to remove non-meritorious claims from the system, not for placing a strict limit on the compensation a jury can award to victims of malpractice. The cost of caring for a child paralyzed or otherwise disabled for a lifetime by malpractice can run into the millions, yet these so-called ‘reformers’ want to cap all awards at a low level, regardless of the facts of the case. That’s not justice, that’s risk management, and it’s not what our court system is based upon. Why is a legislator, who may be getting campaign contributions from the insurance industry, better qualified to put a price on a lifetime of pain than a fellow citizen who is disinterested but knows the facts of the case?

Create your own personalized map of the USA. I seem to be unable to resist these doodads. I usually find these little blog memes to be lamely self-referential, and… well, this one is too. But for some reason I don’t care. I find this an interesting summation of personal experience, a little map of one’s … Read more

Link: GEMS ELECTION RESULTS. At the time of this writing, with 69% of precincts counted, the margin is large enough to say the all the Questions on the ballot have passed. That means that the RTA and the county mental health facility’s funding are both approved. The RTA by a roughly 60/40 ratio, and the … Read more

What do Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, Warren Rudman, and Alan Simpson have in common? Well, besides being former eminent U.S. Senators, not much. But they do agree on one thing: they all admire Arizona’s Clean Elections system and want to bring a similar system of publically financed election to the federal government. They have all … Read more

Update 5/16/06: Apparently there is still no independent verification of Rove’s indictment. TruthOut’s editors claim two sources near the investigation and are standing by the story. Did the web jump the gun? The political world waits on pins and needles. One thing is obvious: if he ain’t indicted yet, he will be. It has finally … Read more