On 30-9-2009 23:14, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/30/09 15:34, andrel wrote:
>> One of the reasons for their high earnings (at least as given by some us
>> physicians that I know) is that they have to be able to pay a) the
>> mal-practice insurance and b) the mal-practice law suits.
> 
>     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.


> http://www.factcheck.org/president_uses_dubious_statistics_on_costs_of.html
> 
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
> 
> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

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

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

On 10/01/09 13:41, andrel wrote:
> 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.

	Which is also why people like yourself are not ones policy makers want 
to listen to.<G>

	And BTW, even that won't tell much. There are too many other 
significant variables over that 40 year period which may impact health 
care more than this.

-- 
Why a man would want a wife is a big mystery to some people.  Why a man
would want *two* wives is a bigamystery.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses.
> Probably not mentioning the studies that are in
> agreement with the Bush paper etc.

Argument from wishful thinking.

Disclaimer: I chimed into this late and explicitly don't know what side of the
debate you are on.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2009 1:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/01/09 13:41, andrel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>     Which is also why people like yourself are not ones policy makers 
> want to listen to.<G>

Normally I am not so 'scientific' about this sort of things. Yet, in 
this case there are so many confounding factors. E.g. you can not look 
to one state, take a measure that might influences the salary of someone 
and assume that the fact that the neighbouring state pays more is of no 
effect. There is also a whole chain of things influenced by law suits. 
Not only the physician but also the other medical staff and the board of 
the hospital etc. Even larger than that, law suit influence the mindset 
of a whole country. You can not look to the experience in another 
country either because too many things are different...

>     And BTW, even that won't tell much. There are too many other 
> significant variables over that 40 year period which may impact health 
> care more than this.

Correction, I was talking about the same 20 years twice. So it is not 
only practically and politically impossible, but even physically.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2009 12:55, gregjohn wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses.
>> Probably not mentioning the studies that are in
>> agreement with the Bush paper etc.
> 
> Argument from wishful thinking.
> 
> Disclaimer: I chimed into this late and explicitly don't know what side of the
> debate you are on.

I think I am on no side at all. As I said, I don't believe any 
'evidence' for any position in this debate.

I do have an opinion on the US healthcare issue, but that was not really 
what this was about.

Post a reply to this message