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)"



-- 
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass.  M.Twain

Post a reply to this message