Bush vs

Bush vs. The Truth on 'Tort Reform'

President's Claims About Lawsuits
Redefine 'WMD' – Web of Mass Deception

President Bush's consistently blames injured people and the lawyers who represent them for driving up liability insurance rates for health-care providers and U.S. health-care costs. But the president's claims about the tort system are based on hype, distortions and outright falsehoods.

"You need look no further than the facts to conclude that President Bush has been weaving a Web of Mass Deception in trying to justify limiting people's Constitutional right to have a jury of their peers decide what's fair," said Paul Lyon, Executive Director of The Committee for Justice for All, a nonprofit Northeastern Pennsylvania advocacy group fighting to preserve the integrity of the civil justice system and the Constitutional right of all Americans to trial by a jury of their peers.

"The president's 'tort reform' agenda amounts to blatant political pandering to the powerful insurance companies, drug makers, HMOs and corporate fat cats who fund his brand of neoconservative politics," Lyon said. "Caps won't do a thing to lower insurance costs for health-care providers or average Americans. They will only make the rich richer and hurt seriously injured patients."

Here's what Bush says versus the truth:

WHAT BUSH SAYS: “Physicians are faced with a terrible choice, to give up medicine entirely or to move to another place where they can afford to practice medicine ... In 2003, almost half of all American hospitals lost physicians or reduced services because of medical liability concerns. Think about that, one half of all American hospitals lost physicians.”

THE TRUTH: Doctors are NOT leaving the practice.

The number of physicians has risen in every state every year over the last 3 years (of available data – 2000–2002), and the numbers of physicians are higher in every state than they were in 1996. (American Medical Association, “Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S.,” 2003-2004 edition)
The number of physicians per 100,000 people has risen in every state every year over the last 3 years. (American Medical Association, “Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S.,” 2003-2004 edition)
In Pennsylvania, the Pa. Medical Society has admitted to an 800-doctor gain since 2002. (The Morning Call, Allentown, Pa., "Diagnosis of the Numbers Shows Doctors Not Leaving the State in Droves")
The General Accounting Office, in a report issued in August 2003, found the number of doctors in Pennsylvania had actually increased over the previous six years. ("What Crisis?" The Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2003)

WHAT BUSH SAYS: Malpractice lawsuits are driving up health-insurance costs for average Americans – “Many of the costs that we’re talking about don’t start in an examining room or an operating room; they start in a courtroom.”

THE TRUTH: “Malpractice costs … represent(s) less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. 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.” (“Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice,” Congressional Budget Office, 1/08/04)

WHAT BUSH SAYS: “Defensive medicine drives a wedge between the doctors and the patients ... and defensive medicine is incredibly costly for our society.”

THE TRUTH: Defensive medicine is a myth.

According to CBO’s 2004 study: “ … some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients. On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.” (Congressional Budget Office “Limiting Tort Liability for Malpractice,” 1/8/04)
The GAO also examined the practice of "defensive medicine" and concluded "the overall prevalence and costs of such practices have not been reliably measured." (General Accounting Office, "Implications of Rising Premiums on Access to Health Care," August 2003)

WHAT BUSH SAYS: “Caps on non-economic damages work. It’s a good idea.”

THE TRUTH: Caps DON'T lower liability insurance premiums for health-care providers.

States with caps on damages have average insurance premiums that are 9.8% higher than insurance premiums in states without caps on damages. (Medical Liability Monitor, October 2004)
In the five states that recently passed new medical malpractice caps, premiums rose at nearly double the rate as states that did not pass a damage cap. Those states are: MS, NV, OH, OK and TX. (Medical Liability Monitor, October 2004)
Malpractice premiums in California increased by 190% during the first 12 years following enactment of the $250,000 MICRA cap. It took California's Proposition 103 - insurance reform - to lower and stabilize malpractice premium rates. (“MICRA: The Impact On Health Care Costs of California’s Experiment With Restrictions On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits; Report of the Proposition 103 Enforcement Project Study,” 1995)

WHAT BUSH SAYS: “Patients are treated more fairly when there’s a cap.”

THE TRUTH: Caps are arbitrary and discriminatory.

Caps on non-economic damages disproportionately affect women, children, the elderly, the disabled, and others who may not have substantial economic loss (i.e., lost wages or salary.) Non-economic damages compensate patients for very real injuries, such as the loss of a limb or sight, the loss of mobility, the loss of fertility, excruciating pain and permanent and severe disfigurement. They also compensate for the loss of a child or a spouse. These are very real damages, and only juries can calculate them fairly. Non-economic damages are the ONLY compensation a jury can provide for life-altering injuries or death.

WHAT BUSH SAYS: “It’s a system that’s just not fair … it is really costly for patients.”

THE TRUTH: The U.S. tort system has been ensuring justice and fairness to Americans for more than 250 years. What's costly for patients and our health-care system is the rampant epidemic of medical errors.

Medical errors kill as many as 98,000 Americans every year and cost as much as $29 billion, according to the Institute of Medicine. Other research suggests that the human toll may be far higher, with preventable errors and negligence taking the lives of 195,000 people each year. ("To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System," Institute of Medicine, 1999; “Patient Safety in American Hospitals,” HealthGrades, July 2004, www.healthgrades.com)

WHAT BUSH SAYS: “Jury awards in medical liability cases have skyrocketed in recent years.”

THE TRUTH: There has been no significant increase nationally, and both payouts and case filings in Pennsylvania have decreased in recent years.

In Pennsylvania, the number cases filed has dropped nearly 30 percent since 2000; total payouts have decreased each of the last two years; and MCARE (the state's Catastrophic Loss Fund) payouts were down $50 million in 2003.
No state agency in Pa. keeps track of how much is awarded by juries for non-economic damages in malpractice cases. There are no comprehensive statistics, only anecdotes about occasional large jury awards.
Nationally, the median malpractice verdict rose from $1 million in 2000 and 2001 to $1,010,858 in 2002 — an increase of only 1.1 percent. This increase did not even come
close to keeping pace with medical services inflation.
The number of medical malpractice payouts per 100 doctors has declined 11 percent from 1994 to 2003, according to figures from the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Average physician medical malpractice payouts have increased only 1 percent a year after adjusting for medical services inflation, according to figures from the National
Practitioner Data Bank.

WHAT BUSH SAYS: Caps on non-economic damages will lower doctors' liability insurance premiums.

THE TRUTH: Insurance executives have repeatedly admitted that the caps proposed by President Bush won't lower doctors' premiums.

“Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%.” — GE Medical Protective regulatory filing with Department of Insurance (TDI), October 30, 2003. (The revelation was contained in a document submitted by GE Medical Protective to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians’ premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.)
"We have not promised price reductions with tort reform." — Dennis Kelly, American Insurance Association spokesman, Chicago Tribune, January 3, 2005
"There is no question that it is very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are too expensive to bring." — Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2004.
"I don't like to hear insurance-company executives say it's the tort system — it's self inflicted." — Donald J. Zuk, chief executive of Scpie Holdings Inc., a leading malpractice insurer in California, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.
"No responsible insurer can cut its rates after a [medical malpractice tort 'reform'] bill passes." — Bob White, President of First Professional Insurance Company, the largest medical malpractice insurer in Florida, talking about a proposed $250,000 cap in the January 29, 2003 Palm Beach Post.
" ... One of the reasons the premiums won't go down is that even if noneconomic damages are capped, the losses for economic loss — medical expenses, for example — are still in this current environment escalating at, medical inflation is running in the double digits. I forget exactly what it was last year. So even if you were to cap noneconomic damages, the economic damages will still cause acceleration in the premiums. So it would not go down, I want to clarify if I misspoke and said I thought the premiums would go down." — Cliff Webster, representing the Washington State Medical Association & Chairman of the Washington Liability Reform Coalition, testifying before the Washington State Legislature, House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 21, 2003.
"Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings ..." — From a press release March 13, 2002, by the American Insurance Association (AIA).
"[M]any tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and 'I've never said that in 30 years.'" — Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, as paraphrased and quoted in "Tort Reforms Don't Cut Liability Rates, Study Says," published in Business Insurance July 19, 1999.
"We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates." — Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association, as quoted in "Study Finds No Link Between Tort Reforms and Insurance Rates," Liability Week, July 19, 1999.
"Insurance was cheaper in the 1990s because insurance companies knew that they could take a doctor's premium and invest it, and $50,000 would be worth $200,000 five years later when the claim came in. An insurance company today can't do that." — Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, "Dose of Legality," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 20, 2003.