|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |