CA malpractice insurance companies screwing doctors

[eridani]

"Tort reform" bullshit has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Sacramento Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/02/17/jones-seeks-lower-malpractice-rates.html
Calif. insurance commissioner seeks lower medical malpractice rates

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, already at loggerheads with health plans over high rates and excessive rate increases, is turning his attention to medical malpractice companies.

Jones expressed concerns about high medical malpractice rates Thursday and said he?s asked companies that do business in California to reduce them.

The Doctors Company, the largest medical malpractice insurer in California, had a 10.1 percent loss ration for 2009, according to department figures posted on its website.

That means for every $1 of premiums collected, 10 cents was paid out in claims.

Norcal Mutual Insurance Co, the second-largest medical malpractice insurer in California, had a loss ratio of 29.72 percent in 2009, and the Medical Insurance Exchange of California, No. 3 in the state, had a loss ratio of 25.34 percent.The nonprofit Consumer Watchdog applauded Jones' call for rate reductions.

National Association of Insurance Commissioners - Countrywide Summary of Medical Malpractice Insurance (37 pages):

http://www.naic.org/documents/research_stats_medical_malpractice.pdf

Medical-liability bill approved by House committee
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110217/NEWS/302179959/

Members of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted 18-15 to approve the medical liability reform bill that physician Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) introduced late last month.

Ultimately, the law would limit non-economic damages to $250,000 and makes each party liable only for the amount of damages that is directly proportional to that party's percentage of responsibility.

Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: California has a combined medical malpractice loss ratio of 22
percent. That is, of the very expensive malpractice insurance premiums being paid, 78 percent does not end up compensating those experiencing medical injuries but is diverted to the insurers and defense lawyers. This is yet one more of a multitude of reasons why our tort system is serving these injured individuals so poorly.

Reforming the system has continued to be an elusive goal. The Republicans have now cleared a malpractice reform bill through the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation is similar to that passed many years ago in California, yet obviously the California approach is not working well.

We do need malpractice reform, but not because it will save money; it won't. We need to replace the system with a non-adversarial dispute resolution process designed to provide compensation for medical injury. Since most individuals suffering medical injury currently do not sue, the probability is that expanding compensation for which patients are entitled will cost more than any savings recovered by a reduction in defensive medicine.

There is some question as to how much defensive medicine could be eliminated anyway since, presumably, tests to prevent lawsuits are tests that could identify an important problem that would otherwise be missed. Just because a test has a low yield doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

We need to strengthen the relationships between patients and their health care professionals. They need to work together as a team, even when inevitable cases of medical injury occur. That is why we need malpractice reform that, above all, places the interests of patients first.

My comment: In countries with universal health care, the government either controls or regulates malpractice insurance. In France, primary care doctors pay $150/year, and specialists $700/year. In Japan, malpractice insurance comes with membership in the medical association, which costs $100/month and provides services other than malpractice insurance as well.

By far the biggest cause of Americans using the law against doctors because of bad outcomes (whether or not those outcomes were actually caused by malpractice), is an attempt to recover the expenses of ongoing care necessitated by the poor outcome. People actually living in sane countries don't do this because extra necessary treatment for poor outcomes is guaranteed as a human right.

[kratos00]

1. So the docs who threw in with the insurance companies

To pass tort reform will now organize to pass legislation to cap insurance co profits right?

Probably not.

If they really wanted medmal rates to drop they would work to socialize it, have the state collect premiums and run the fund.

But that would be communism right?

[eridani]

2. Physicians for a National Health Program are working on it n/t

[blueclown]

3. In other words...

the medical malpractice insurance industry has a license to print money..