To be clear, I’m talking about the cost/benefit. If the cost is $0, then that equation is out of balance. There are literally people going to the ER for a stomach ache. I’m only going off of personal experience here.
You made a few interesting assertions about TX without references. Could you please site statistics for the increase of malpractice since tort reform went in place?
Looking for myself, I only found articles refuting your assertion about insurance premiums [1].
"...find no evidence of reduced spending in Texas post-reform, and some evidence that physician spending rose in Texas relative to control states. In sum, we find no evidence that Texas’s tort reforms bent the cost curve downward."
"...our conclusion is that reforming the malpractice environment has largely insignificant economic implications for health insurance markets."
So, I mispoke. Claims went down 75%. Malpractice premiums went down 50%. Yet, overall, medical costs to insurance companies and consumers rose at the same rate as everyone else.
You have expertly found a flaw in my offhand comment.
But the point, that much lauded tort reform doesn't do much, if anything, to help consumers (and, in fact, could hurt them) in the healthcare space, stands.
If you step back from pedantry and consider ideas rather than pick apart the flaws in the imperfect words used to express ideas, you might find that the world becomes a more interesting place.
To be clear, I’m talking about the cost/benefit. If the cost is $0, then that equation is out of balance. There are literally people going to the ER for a stomach ache. I’m only going off of personal experience here.
You made a few interesting assertions about TX without references. Could you please site statistics for the increase of malpractice since tort reform went in place?
Looking for myself, I only found articles refuting your assertion about insurance premiums [1].
1- https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2013/09/0...