On 1-10-2009 1:12, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/30/09 17:25, andrel wrote:
>>> It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they
>>> barely affect health care costs:
>>
>> As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't
>> do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the
>> opposite conclusion must therefore be true.
> 
> "However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several 
> other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such 
> large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public 




> with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits."
> 
> "Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology 
> Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to 
> defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive 
> Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the 


> 
> "Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total 
> health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated 
> $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of 
> overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent 
> to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only 
> about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health 
> insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)"

Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not 
mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc. 
Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the 
other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for 
20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the 
other option. Which is impossible.

Post a reply to this message