Hawaii Personal Injury Blog - obama

Insurance Reform Because Of Insurance Abuse

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:22:07 GMT

The insurance industry has more money than any other force in American politics and their right wing conservative media forces, led by Limbaugh and O'Reilly are geared up to blitz the public with screaming attacks on the public option and a veiled opposition to anything that Congress might do to loosen their grips on control of American politics. To all the Congressmen and women out there: don't cave in to these bullies. We have your back and we'll have your back in the next election. A vote for the public option is a vote for competition in business.

Big insurance is exempt from Anti-Trust laws. Why is that? Its the double standard and there is no greater perversion than the double standard, regardless of the subject. At least 65% of the American public want to stop the greed and call Big Insurance into the room for a good scolding, some quiet time and probation until, they pay for their sins. And 65% of the American public is capable of, and will, un-elect any Senator or U.S. House Representative who votes against the public option. We're taking names. We won't forget.

That's important. You see, the ONLY thing that an elected politician really thinks about when casting vote is "Could this vote get me UNELECTED?". Sixty-five percent of Americans can un-elect anyone in Congress and in the White House. elected officials: you've been given notice.

The insurance industry does nothing to address the 98,000 Americans who die each year do to avoidable medical errors. Big insurance doesn't want to talk about how their private health insurance plans routinely cut off medical care to sick people and put the money into huge executive bonuses and lavish partying on yachts. The doctors never talk about how to save some of those 98,000 lives each year. All the doctors want to talk about is money. Their money.

The public can see this and the public is getting angry. I write these Blog posts and doctors write in saying that the system is too adversarial. They complain about doing unnecessary tests. Well an unnecessary test can't accuse one of the 98,000 avoidable errors that are killing Americans each year? When I point that out to a doctor who writes a Comment, they never respond with any facts or information to say it ain't so. Of course they have nothing to say because they have no facts. Its all about their fancy houses and their European vacations. It isn't about health. That's sad.

The Salt Lake Tribune (10/13) editorialized that the recent CBO report "estimated that a package of medical malpractice reforms could save the federal budget about $41 billion in health care costs and increase federal tax revenues another $13 billion, both over a 10-year period." But "to put the numbers into perspective, the CBO estimates that the package of reforms it studied would reduce total national health care spending by about .5 percent (one-half of 1 percent). When it comes to health care, any reduction in rocketing costs is a good thing, but reforming malpractice law is hardly a panacea. The other side of the coin is that doctors and hospitals regularly kill people through their negligence." The goal "should be to reform the process without denying people who have been injured or killed their day in court and just compensation."

CBO Report On Tort Reform And Health Care Flawed

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform

Budget Office Misquoted on MalPractice Reform - by Robert Blanchard

Or go to the Center For Justice & Democracy website for all of the true facts about insurance reform. Their site The Pop Tort is a cause that everyone should join if power to the people is something that you really care about.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

I Support Obama In Creating A Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:57:49 GMT

The AP (10/9, Kuhnhenn) reports President Obama "fought to keep his proposed banking overhaul on track Friday, casting the political struggle ahead as one between big financial interests" and citizens "victimized by complex or unscrupulous financial transactions." Obama said, "My concern are the millions of Americans who behaved responsibly and yet still found themselves in jeopardy because of the predatory practices of some in the financial industry." The President "confronted opponents of the plan, singling out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is conducting a $2 million advertising effort to defeat the consumer plan." Obama said, "They're doing what they always do -- descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain a status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers."

The Los Angeles Times (10/10, Puzzanghera) says Obama, speaking in the White House East Room, offered the "sharpest comments on the issue" in criticizing those who are "trying to block, or at least water down, the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency." The Washington Post (10/10, Dennis, Appelbaum) says "both the speech and the setting represented an escalation in the administration's push to expand the government's role." The New York Times (10/10, B5, Labaton) reports US Chamber spokesman Thomas Collamore responded, "The US Chamber is focused on job creation and economic growth. It is our constitutional right to petition our government on behalf of our members, the millions of businesses trying to make their way out of this recession." The Hill (10/9, Youngman) and AFP (10/9) also report on the President's remarks.

Columnist supports CFPA creation. In the "Talking Business" column at the New York Times (10/10), Joe Nocera wrote that the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency is needed because the current regulatory bodies inadequately address consumer concerns. "At the Federal Reserve, consumers will never come first," Nocera writes. "Alan Greenspan had the power to curb abusive subprime loans, but he just wasn't interested. Nor is it any different over at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the nation's other big bank regulator. Not long ago, John C. Dugan, the comptroller, gave a speech in which he said...that the banks had not been responsible for the financial crisis. Regulators who take their talking points from the American Bankers Association don't exactly inspire confidence that they're looking out for consumers."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

CBO Report On Tort Reform And Health Care Flawed

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:42:37 GMT

Orin Hatch may have gotten the headline that his powerful insurance industry CFO's wanted but the headline isn't supported by the data in the latest CBO report on tort reform and health care. Supporters of both reform of of the private health insurance industry and preservation of our system of justice still maintain the high ground and are supported in their efforts by th facts. The "new math" that Orin Hatch got from this CBO report is a twisted analysis of marginal studies, confusing at best and flat wrong in many instances.

The fact remains as it was when I wrote Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform, on September 17, 2009, that we need insurance reform. This battle over single payer and a public plan is about insurance companies and their CEO's like those AIG Executives who gave themselves millions of dollars of bonuses with the bailout money from taxpayers.

It isn't about doctors or hospitals. It is about who pays for the treatment you need and who decides whether you need the treatment. Today those decisions are made by non-medical staffers at your health insurance company - if you can afford health insurance. They decide what tests you get and what treatments. If your doctor disagrees she or he is overruled by some perky adjuster at the insurance company with a degree in literature and not a clue about medicine. Inside the halls of the marble clad insurance buildings its all about money. Their motto?

"We accept your premiums and DENY your claims!"

I read the CBO Report and it doesn't support the headline about tort reform. Will major media read it critically? Will any of the journalists at the wall Street Journal actually dig into the report? Maybe. But I doubt that they will analyze it because to do so would force them to agree that the report doesn't say what it is advertised to say.

The Los Angeles Times (10/10, Hart), however, puts a different interpretation on the report, saying the analysis shows the savings would be "far lower than advocates have estimated," and would be "unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly."

The Washington Post (10/10, Montgomery, 684K) reports Congressional Budget Office analysts said lawmakers "could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- 10 times more than previously estimated." In a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said new research "shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but also would spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court."

Looking at the specifics of the CBO report, Joanne Doroshow of The Center For Justice & Democracy (CJ&D) exposes the strained logic and marginal supporting data:

More could die and be injured, yet the costs of newly injured are ignored. Inasmuch as these kinds of extreme “tort reform” would weaken the deterrent potential of the tort system, (which even CBO acknowledges but does not consider in its cost calculations), with accompanying increases in cost and physician utilization inherent in caring for newly maimed patients and for care which ultimately leads to more deaths, it seems responsible for CBO to make legitimate claims of potential savings until it knows those added costs.

Deaths. Shockingly, the report admits that “imposing limits on [the right to sue for damages] might be expected to have a negative impact on health outcomes,” yet brushes aside the significance of this not because it is untrue, but because it says there are too few studies on the topic. Yet of the three studies that do address the issue of mortality, CBO notes that one study finds such tort restrictions would lead to a .2 percent increase in the nation’s overall death rate. If true, that would be an additional 4,853 Americans killed every year by medical malpractice, or 48,250 Americans over the ten-year period CBO examines.

Injuries. Based on these same numbers, another 400,000 or more patients could be injured during the 10 years examined by CBO given that one in ten injured patients die as shown in a study of California hospitals cited in Tom Baker, The Medical Malpractice Myth, University of Chicago Press, 2005. The costs of errors, which the Institute of Medicine already puts at “$17 billion and $29 billion, of which health care costs represent over one-half,” would clearly increase. Consider, for example, that the average length of stay per hospitalization is around 4.4 days and the average cost per day in the hospital is around $2,000 per day per injury. Consider those costs on top of physician utilization inherent in caring for these new patients. And those costs do not consider lost contributions to the workforce and tax revenues for the most seriously injured who cannot work, or for those who have died.

Other studies not considered by CBO show the beneficial impact of lawsuits on health outcomes. For example, in one August 2009 study, researcher found that in 86 percent of obstetrical cases they examined, “improved health outcomes associated with medical malpractice pressure” led to cost-savings in the health sector and these cost-saving exceeded any marginal costs of defensive medicine, leading also to “an improvement in net social benefits rather than a decline, as should be the case for defensive medicine,” according to Praveen Dhankhar, Mahmud Khan, “Threat of Malpractice Lawsuit, Physician Behavior and Health Outcomes: A re-evaluation of practice of ‘Defensive Medicine’ in Obstetric Care,” Tulane University - Health System Management Area, August, 03 2009.

In a Blog at The Hill (10/9), Jeffrey Young wrote that the report "gave a notable boost...to backers of capping medical malpractice lawsuits." But "with a Democratic president and Democrats in control of Congress, passing any bill that would limit how much money patients can win in lawsuits against doctors is highly unlikely. Democrats contend it would be unfair to curb the rights of wronged patients to seek restitution." However "if Democrats do ignore the CBO's findings, they would also open themselves to Republican attacks that the party is beholden to its allies in the trial bar."

In the "Health Blog" at the Wall Street Journal (10/9), Jacob Goldstein noted that the CBO report said that it was unclear whether reducing liability would affect patients' health outcomes. The New York Post (10/10, Campanile) also covered the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Christopher Sanders Died From Medical Malpractice - His Mom Laurie Asks Doctors to Be Accountable

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:17:18 GMT

In an op-ed in the Charlotte (NC) Observer (10/1), Laurie Sanders, who settled a medical negligence case arising from the death of her son, Christopher, wrote:

"Lobbyists for the medical and insurance industries tout 'malpractice reform' as an essential part of a health care bill," but "the reforms they seek would prevent injured patients and their families from discovering the truth and seeking redress in the courts."

Sanders comments:

"One of the lessons of Christopher's unnecessary death - and my necessary lawsuit - is not that health care providers need to engage in cost-inflating 'defensive medicine.' Instead, it is that doctors and nurses must pay attention, communicate with their colleagues and adhere to well-recognized standards of practice."

AAJ Report Debunks Defensive Medicine Myth - By Cecelia Prewett, September 30, 2009 3:05 PM.

Fact is however, that a 2008 report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) notes that the evidence of “defensive medicine” “is not conclusive, and whether limits on malpractice torts have an impact on the practice of medicine has been subject to some debate.” And the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that even “officials from AMA [American Medical Association] and several medical, hospital and nursing home associations…[said] that defensive medicine exists to some degree, but that it is difficult to measure.”

According to the Institute of Medicine, as many as 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. The costs associated with these errors are thought to be as high as $29 billion annually. This does not include the number of patients, or associated costs, of those severely injured by preventable medical errors, but survive the trauma. Clouding the health care debate with myths and distortions, particularly about a malpractice system that makes up 0.3% of overall costs will do nothing to repair our nation’s ailing system.

I have written on this subject many times before: Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform, Posted by Wayne Parsons September 17, 2009 2:53 PM

Laurie Sanders speaks to all of the Senators and to the President when she concludes:

"To improve patient safety, doctors and hospitals must be accountable for their negligence. Enacting legislation that erodes patients' access to the courts will diminish the quality of care without reducing medical costs."

See the full AAJ Report with substantiated facts: “The Truth About ‘Defensive Medicine,’”

The public deserves all the Senators including ours here in Hawaii, Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka to fight for medical profession accountability for the 98,000 deaths each year from avoidable medical errors. President Obama should keep his promise to America and enact reform of the health insurance industry, not send Sen. Baucus to make back room deals that put a lie to one of the Presidents strongest campaign issues: taking on the insurance industry.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Is Congress Going To Get Rid Of All Of The Trial Attorneys With Tort Reform In Health Care?

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:36:24 GMT

My story on the current health care and tort reform debate it became clear to me that nothing and no one in this country can stand up to the insurance industry. Not President Obama even with a majority in both the House and the Senate and a 75% public demand for the public option. You can see more detail on this in my stories:

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform - By Wayne Parsons, September 17, 2009

Public Plan, Public Plan, Public Plan! - By Wayne Parsons, August 29, 2009

Tort Reform Shows the Connection Between Big Insurance and the Republican Party

Wayne Parsons, August 26, 2009

Now as I watch President Obama and Senator Baucus cave in to the force of insurance companies working behind the scenes, I realize that the country is held hostage and will not be free until the insurance industry is reformed. So I was particularly interested when the following message came in from Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) on insurance reform:

America’s health insurance companies have had a pretty sweet deal for decades.

They can pick and choose their customers and deny coverage to anyone with any sort of pre-existing condition -- evien acne. They can get away with dropping your coverage when you get sick.

And since 1945 they have been exempt from the antitrust regulations that apply to nearly every other industry, rules that protect consumers from anti-competitive business practices like price-fixing.

That’s why, as part of our broader health care reform effort, I just introduced legislation in the Senate to eliminate the outdated insurance industry antitrust exemption and force health insurance companies to compete fairly -- like virtually every other business in America.

Please e-mail your members of Congress today, urging them to support the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, S. 1681 and H.R. 3596.

Passing health care reform with an effective public option is one key way to promote competition in the health insurance marketplace, but we must also eliminate the unjustified and unnecessary antitrust exemption currently enjoyed by insurance companies.

A recent study found that one or two insurance giants dominate 94 percent of American health insurance markets, meaning every year consumers end up paying more money for less coverage.

When insurance companies know they don’t have to compete, they don’t. When they know they can get away with raising your premiums every year, they do. And when they know they can deny you coverage without consequence, they'll leave you high and dry.

The Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, which I introduced in the Senate last week, is not the be all and end all of necessary reform, but it is a key way we can give consumers more choice in the health insurance marketplace.

Please e-mail your members of Congress today, urging them to support the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, S. 1681 and H.R. 3596.

It's time for the insurance industry to play by the same good-competition rules as nearly every other industry in America.

I’ve proposed similar legislation in the past, and Congress failed to pass it. So we must redouble our efforts this time around and urge Congress to support it as part of our broader health care reform efforts.

Thank you for emailing Congress today to support this important legislation.

Sincerely,

I also just read Politico, where American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone talks about the health care bill, tort reform and admits that this a way for Congress to “put trial lawyers out of business.”

Everyone knows that tort reform does not save money, does not provide health care for the uninsured, nor d ores tort reform improve health care. Tort reform eliminates claims by injured people. Those claims prevent medical errors, while less litigation results in more errors, injury and death. Here is what Mr. Tarricone has to say about the debate raging on out televisions across the country:

In the past few weeks, some pundits or talking heads have demanded to know, “What have the trial lawyers sacrificed to get health care passed?” But this isn’t about trial lawyers. It’s about patients, hurt through no fault of their own, left with debilitating injuries or worse. This bill is about health care, not bargaining away people’s legal rights.

....

But taking away people’s legal rights is the entirely wrong way to do it. That’s saying it is acceptable for 98,000 people to die every year, with thousands more injured, because of preventable medical errors. And that’s also saying it is OK to dictate what their lives are worth or whether they should have any recourse at all. Such a proposition is ridiculous.

The entire op-ed is certainly worth a read. Additionally, AAJ has prepared a wealth of materials related to medical negligence and the health care debate, which can be found here.

If you want to know the history of the insurance industry try to get rid of trial attorneys read my article The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People - By Wayne Parsons, May 02, 2009 5:13 PM and follow the work that is cited there about The Commonweal Institute, Joanne Doroshow at Civil Justice & Democracy and The CALA Report.

The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law - The Commonweal Institute

THE CALA FILES: THE SECRET CAMPAIGN BY BIG TOBACCO AND OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIES TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS By Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

HHS Tort Reform Study Grants Proposed By Obama To Reduce Malpractice Costs

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:27:39 GMT

The AP (9/18) reports that on Thursday the Obama Administration "announced $25 million in grants for states and health care systems to experiment with alternatives to costly medical malpractice lawsuits." The grants will amount to "up to $3 million each for three years," and can be used for "a range of ideas, including programs in which doctors and hospitals quickly acknowledge a mistake, offer an apology and restitution, and pledge to take corrective action."

I wrote yesterday about the fact that tort reform has no place in the health care discussion.

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform

The Los Angeles Times (9/18, Nicholas) called the program "modest." Though it "was meant as a bipartisan overture [it] was quickly denounced by Republicans, business and consumer groups as an empty gesture." After Obama's announcement, "opposition came from all points," suggesting "that Obama had gained little ground" with the program. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, however, argued, "I think the good news is that the president feels strongly enough about this that he wants us to move ahead right now. ... He's not using this as a lever in the healthcare debate, but he feels that we can move ahead."

Today Jane Akre writes that 45,000 people die annually because of no health insurance: 45,000 People Die Annually From Lack Of Insurance Study Finds By Jane Akre | September 18, 2009 11:34 AM

The Washington Post (9/18, Connolly) characterizes the announcement as a move by Obama to "ease the pain" felt by physicians after "a pair of setbacks" Wednesday in Sen. Max Baucus' proposed health reform bill. Sen. Baucus' bill "does nothing substantively to address malpractice costs and offers them only modest gains on the high-priority issue of Medicare reimbursement." The Post notes that while the AMA has not issued a statement concerning the grants, several "prominent AMA members complained bitterly about both the Baucus approach and the administration grants." The Wall Street Journal (9/18, Weisman) added that the grant application phase will open within 30 days, with award announcements expected in early 2010, according to Sebelius.

CNN (9/18) explains that the HHS program will award grants "on a competitive basis to states and healthcare systems for implementing and evaluating 'patient safety and medical liability demonstrations.'" President Obama pointed out, "Many physicians continue to struggle to pay their medical malpractice premiums." Sebelius noted that "approximately one percent of overall healthcare costs nationwide are attributable to malpractice premiums."

The Wall Street Journal (9/18, Weisman) adds that the grant application phase will open within 30 days, with award announcements are expected in early 2010, according to Sebelius.

Many news outlets noted that the President in the past has denied that medical malpractice premiums are worthy of much focus in the health reform debate. The New York Times (9/17, Seelye) "Prescriptions" blog reported that the program's "comparatively small budget seems commensurate with the administration's level of interest in the subject," and that the grants "are a concession to Republicans by the president."

The ABC News (9/17, Travers, Miller) "Political Punch" blog added that "at a healthcare rally at the University of Maryland [Thursday], Obama reiterated that he did not think medical malpractice reform is a 'silver bullet' for cutting healthcare costs, but said that he wants to explore the idea, with a nod to bipartisanship."

The NPR (9/17, James) "Two-Way" blog reports that while "a lot of people believe" that "medical malpractice is a major contributor to healthcare inflation...the available evidence is with the president." NPR noted that "perhaps one percent or less of healthcare's high costs has been attributed in many studies to malpractice lawsuits."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Tort Reform Has No Place In Health Care Reform

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:53:48 GMT

President Obama needs the support of all of us in regard to the efforts by the insurance industry to sneak tort reform into the health care bill before Congress. No back room deals with the insurance industry will be tolerated by the vast majority of Americans who are clamoring for real health care reform and no Shibai!

Tort reform has no place in health care reform. Taking away the rights of patients injured by negligent doctors and hospitals will do nothing to improve health care and study after study has shown that tort reform will not lower doctor's insurance costs. The biggest myth is the false claim that health care costs are driven up by defensive medicine _ doctors doing unnecessary medical tests to avoid frivolous lawsuits. When studies have been about those tests in states where tort reform has been passed, it turns out that the doctors and hospitals continue to do the tests. Why? Because they make money doing those tests. So leaving the 98,000 Americans who die each year due to negligent doctors and hospitals through preventable medical injuries without a remedy for their losses is un-American and just plain wrong.

You may be interested in reading the true facts about defensive medicine:

The Public Deserves The Truth About Lawsuit Abuse and Medical Malpractice - By Wayne Parsons, June 24, 2009 3:00 PM

Debunking the Myth on Defensive Medicine - By Cecelia Prewett, American Association of Justice (AAJ)

Not surprisingly the Honolulu Star Bulletin has taken up this false call for tort reform recently. That is consistent with the major media outlets siding with the insurance industry and ignoring the facts about health care and the basic American constitutional principle that for for every wrong there should be a remedy.

For more information go to the site for People over Profits where real facts are published and myths debunked. The Center For Justice & Democracy (CJ&D) led by legendary consumer advocate Joanne Doroshow is also a fabulous source for the real facts on these myths that major news media like the editors of the Honolulu Star Bulletin perpetuate on behalf of their friends in Big Insurance.

We must all tell President Obama and Congress not to tamper with the rights of injured patients to appease a greedy insurance industry that is, in fact, primarily responsible for the health care crisis of 98,000 deaths each year, many uninsured patients and doctors being gouged for their legitimate billings by insurance adjusters. I support the statement of Anthony Tarricone, President of the American Association of Justice in his communication today on the subject:

Washington, DC—“Any changes to the malpractice system must focus on patient safety and preventable medical errors, not limiting patients’ legal rights.

“The goals outlined by the White House – such as reducing the number of injuries, fostering better communication, compensating patients quicker, and reducing doctors’ premiums – move the debate in the right direction.

“However, 46 states have already enacted tort reform and health care costs continue to hurt the pocketbooks of American families. Because of these tort reforms, patients injured through no fault of their own are often unable to seek justice.

“It is critical that these demonstration projects preserve Americans’ 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury. The details matter significantly, but any efforts to limit patients’ rights are not acceptable. Promoting greater patient safety and reducing preventable medical errors are tenets doctors, attorneys, hospitals, and all Americans can support.”
### As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama Will Not Support Caps On Damages When A Doctor Or Hospital Negligently Injures A Patient

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:11:02 GMT

Everyone knows that medical malpractice limitations supported by the insurance industry and doctors won't affect health insurance premiums at all. The California legislature passed a cap on damages when a doctor or hospital negligently injures a patient over 20 years ago (MICRA) and today the insurance company MIEC charges more for malpractice insurance to California doctors than it charges to Hawaii doctors. Hawaii has no caps on malpractice damages for avoidable medical errors. Texas also caved in to the lobbying pressure of doctors and insurance companies and they are now seeing that this bailout of insurance companies has no benefit to the health care system and only leaves housewives and children who are injured by avoidable medical errors to suffer without compensation while insurance executives and doctors sip champagne and stay in $1,500 hotel rooms with their undeserved spoils.

Obama says that he will not support any caps on damages for those are injured by negligent doctors. This is a huge victory for women and children who are most often punished by caps on damages and, I might say, it is a victory for both truth and common sense.

Good reading on the failure of tort reform in Texas to produce any of the results promised by doctors and insurance companies - and in fact to make things worse - is found in an article written by Mike Ferrara from Cherry Hill, NJ:

Texas Tort Reform is NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform by Mike Ferrara | September 07, 2009 8:24 PM

Another good article is: Obama's Medical Malpractice Solution by Jane Akre | September 11, 2009 7:24 PM

In the "Political Hotsheet" Blog at CBS News (9/14), Stephanie Condon wrote, "In his speech before Congress last week, President Obama attempted to win Republican support for his health care overhaul by agreeing to consider including medical malpractice reform in his plan. In an interview that aired on CBS' '60 Minutes' on Sunday the president shed some more light on what he meant -- and in which form he will not accept tort reform." Obama "clarified that he is so far not willing to consider capping malpractice judgments, a reform proposal consistently put forward by Republicans."

Fox News' Special Report reported that President Obama "is suggesting that something very important to his political opponents, malpractice law reform, might be on the table. ... The President favors some dry runs first, which Republicans say are unnecessary." Texas and California "have already taken action at the state level and it worked." Rep. Lamar Smith: "Texas passed tort reform in 2003, and premiums went down 30%. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40%." According to Fox, "Tort reform...does not limit compensation for actual damages or loss of income, but often puts a cap of $250,000 on what are called non-economic damages, punitive payments lawyers seek for pain and suffering. ... President Obama concedes defensive medicine is a problem but said last night he does not support limits on liability. Instead, officials are looking at a certificate of merit program in which a panel of experts decides whether a case has merit before it goes to the court. Interesting idea, but a disappointment to those who thought the President had seen the light on liability reform."

My articles also are worth referring to for Hawaii residents. In Hawaii there are almost no medical malpractice cases filed and we have no tort reform. Last year less than 30 cases were filed against doctors in Hawaii. Still the doctors and insurance companies complain and seek legislative changes like those in Texas and California. Its all shibai as is the outlandish editorial in the Honolulu Star Bulletin on Monday, September 14, 2009. I wonder what kind of cool aide the folks at the Star Bulletin are drinking. They should be doing some serious reading. They can start with my article "The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People", May 2, 2009 and also read THE CALA FILES: THE SECRET CAMPAIGN BY BIG TOBACCO AND OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIES TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS - By Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow

The Washington Times (9/15) editorializes, "Reformers in both parties want to curb abusive lawsuits that drive medical costs through the roof. Yet Mr. Obama could not even bring himself to say that any suits are abusive, but merely that doctors are for some reason practicing "defensive medicine [that] may be contributing to unnecessary costs." To help pacify them, the best he could offer was to 'direct' Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen [Sebelius] to 'authorize demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues.' This is a mere placebo." But "as part of permanent federal law rather than a vague presidential directive, [such projects] could help improve affordable health care delivery without subjecting the nation's entire health care system to major and dangerous surgery."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (9/14) editorialized, "Plenty of reasons exist to support medical malpractice reform. Doing it to slow the dizzying growth in health care spending isn't among them." "Few economists believe tort reform by itself - even the most radical tort reform - would significantly reduce what Americans spend on health care. Most experts say the big reasons for high U.S. health spending are chronic illness, expensive new medical technology and an aging population. Lawsuits are far down the list."

The Jackson (TN) Sun (9/14) editorialized, "When it comes to reforming health care in America, there should be no sacred cows that [are not] subject to review and reform. It makes sense for Obama to put malpractice reform on the table for review. This has been a long-standing thorn in the side of conservatives, and they are right to demand it be reviewed and changed if their case can be made."

So where is the Honolulu Star Bulletin in terms of the facts? Do they care? Maybe in the past they felt that you can always put down lawyers and lawsuits because the public is brainwashed on the subject but those days are no more. The truth is out and the public is beginning to see that closing the courthouse doors to legitimate claims by seriously injured women and children is the work of the rich and powerful against the people. Doctors and insurance companies.

As my friend Steve Lombardi writes in his Des Moines, Iowa Injury Board Blog:

We've been covering Interstate travel safety for the past two-weeks on the Injuryboard and a few of my fellow members have jawed about it nonstop. I know that Wayne Parsons, my friend Devon Glass from Michigan, Mike Bryant from Minnesota, Pierce Egerton from North Carolina and Rick Shapiro from Virginia will all join in with my sentiments about being frustrated. Parents frustrate us when they talk all about tort reform and then turn a blind eye to what their children do. Tort reform isn't about the other guy, it's about us and the decisions we make. Tort reform is actually a distraction from the root cause of injuries and accidents. Taking away the rights of people to receive compensation isn't going to stop the accidents that cause injury and death. All tort reform will do is make those injured or the families of those killed miserable. So stop distracting everyone with taking away the right to receive compensation and ignoring the root causes of injury and death on the highways of America.

Well said, Mr. Lombardi!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Is Obama Caving In To Insurance Companies on Tort Reforn In Health Care Negotiation?

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:36:53 GMT

The AP (9/14) reports, "President Barack Obama began a week that will dwell heavily on overhauling the health care system, declaring himself confident Congress will pass 'a good health care bill' even though some Republican opponents were trying to kill the measure for political gain." In his Wednesday speech and again in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," the President "signaled he was open to so-called tort reform. Under current practice, doctors and hospitals must pay huge amounts to insure themselves against malpractice lawsuits by patients seeking large court-ordered settlements for poor treatment." Reuters (9/13, Bohan) noted that in the "60 Minutes" interview, Obama remained skeptical about medical malpractice caps.

Public increasingly backing malpractice caps. The Washington Post (9/14, Cohen, Balz) reports, "President Obama continues to face significant public resistance to his drive to initiate far-reaching changes to the country's health-care system...to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll," but opposition "has eased somewhat." The poll also found that "GOP insistence on placing new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits finds significant public backing: Nearly two-thirds support caps on the amount of money that can be collected as a result of medical errors, with support increasing since June."

Cost of malpractice awards questioned. McClatchy (9/13, Margolies) reported, "Despite the perception that 'jackpot justice' has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a different picture." In fact, "it's not clear that malpractice awards have risen anywhere near as dramatically as tort-reform proponents insist. Nor is it clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums." Tom Baker, "a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth, theorized that having 'a common enemy' - trial lawyers - keeps insurance and pharmaceutical companies - the real culprits behind rising costs, he said - from fighting among themselves."

Republicans "underwhelmed" by promise of demonstration projects. The Salt Lake Tribune (9/13, Canham) reported, "While they appreciated the mention, which was met with hearty applause, many Republicans in Washington were underwhelmed by his promise of 'demonstration projects.' The president has authorized the Health and Human Services Department to set up a grant program for states that would focus on ways to reduce costs stemming from patients' lawsuits against medical professionals. But these projects would fall far short of the Republican goal to place a federal cap on damages for pain and suffering."

Commentary backs pilot programs. The Boston Globe (9/13) editorializes, "President Obama was on target in his speech to Congress Wednesday when he called for pilot projects to reform medical malpractice." But "simply capping malpractice awards is not a panacea in reducing health costs." The Obama administration "should give priority to malpractice reform pilot programs that make dispute resolution part of the health delivery system."

In a blog at The Atlantic (9/13), Philip Howard wrote, "A range of malpractice reform proposals will probably be considered over the next few weeks, and it's probably useful to catalog them, and identify the advantages of each. All of these reforms have significant merit, but special health courts are by far the most important in reducing defensive medicine. Each of the reforms can be combined with others, and it would be preferable to combine the best features of each." Howard summarizes some possible proposals.

With 200,000 Americans dying each year due to preventable medical errors and medical malpractice lawsuits shrinking to low levels, it is shocking to see the President selling out the sick and injured. See my earlier story on this subject:

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

Twelve Tips To Prevent Avoidable, Fatal Medical Errors and Infections in Hospitals

by Wayne Parsons | September 02, 2009 3:47 AM

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama opens door to tort reform in healthcare speech.

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:17 GMT

The AP (9/10) reports that in his speech before a joint session of Congress last night pushing his ideas for healthcare reform, President Obama said "that he wants to look at a 'range of ideas' to 'put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.' Obama says some in Congress believe medical malpractice reform can help bring down health care costs. He says he doesn't think it's a 'silver bullet,' but that he knows that doctors practicing 'defensive medicine' can lead to unnecessary costs. He says he's telling Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to move ahead with demonstration projects to see what changes would work best."

If you want the truth President Obama is showing that his lofty promises - and our hopes - were sorely misplaced. Read my other articles on this subject and you will see that you have been sold out by President Obama.

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People

Public Plan, Public Plan, Public Plan!

Jim Dean and Democracy For America Identify Democrats in Congress Who are Cutting Deals With The Insurance Industry

The President only cares about declaring a win. He is confident that he can lie to the public about what he will agree to as he bows to the demands of the mighty insurance industry and the public will believe him. The arrogance of power has led him _ quickly _ to a sad end as a progressive leader. This health care situation is as bad as politics gets. With the control of both houses Obama has cut corrupt deals with the insurance industry because he can't do what he promised.

Count me out. I gave Obama the maximum amount that could be given in his Presidential run. I will not support him again and I will also not support other democrats that are selling out the country on health care reform. I love Neil Abercrombie but if he supports the sellout on tort deform in the President's negotiation I will not support Abercrombie for governor in Hawaii. I am a democrat and a progressive and they are neither if they support this sellout to Big Insurance.

The Washington Post (9/10, A1, Connolly, Shear) reports that Obama's plan would "begin pilot projects aimed at reducing medical malpractice lawsuits." Most of the article focuses on the broader issues in his speech. Deep within its analysis of the speech, the New York Times (9/10, A27, Nagourney) notes that Obama "did offer gestures across the aisle, embracing an idea from Senator John McCain of Arizona that would insure the poor against catastrophic medical expenses and endorsing some sort of medical malpractice limits that Republicans have long championed.

CNN (9/9) added, on its website, that Obama "directed his administration to set up demonstration projects in several states to move toward medical malpractice reform, throwing a bone to Republicans who have long called for tort reform to bring down health care costs. 'I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs,' the president said to a joint session of Congress. ... Mention of the issue prompted applause from the Republican side of the chamber."

The AP (9/10) runs a feature listing the "key points" in Obama's speech, including a mandate for individual healthcare coverage and pressure on businesses to cover their workers, adding, "Medical malpractice reform is not a 'silver bullet,' but practicing 'defensive medicine' can lead to unnecessary costs; demonstration projects will be reviewed to see what changes to medical malpractice insurance would work best."

Tort reform may not dampen health costs much, McClatchy analysis finds. McClatchy (9/10, Margolies) notes, "Few causes in the healthcare debate draw more support than tort reform -- the idea of reining in frivolous lawsuits that lead to unjust cash awards, soaring malpractice premiums and "defensive medicine," the unnecessary tests ordered by doctors to avoid being sued." However, according to a McClatchy analysis, "despite the perception that 'jackpot justice' has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a much different picture." McClatchy reports that the "most reliable estimates peg the costs of malpractice litigation at 2 percent of overall healthcare costs. And while tort reform measures have helped tamp down malpractice premiums, national health spending continues to rise." Moreover, it is not "clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums." This "suggests that a tort system run amok is, at best, only a small contributor to the nation's healthcare costs."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons