Latest trial lawyer propaganda on medical malpractice

[DW Simpson]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030102/dcth019_1.html

Press Release Source: Association of Trial Lawyers of America

Insurance Companies, Not Legal System, Are Cause of Doctors' Woes
Thursday January 2, 5:43 pm ET
Statement of Mary E. Alexander, President, Association of Trial Lawyers of America

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Mary E. Alexander, President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America:

The insurance industry has too much control over America's health care system. Insurers place profits over people and threaten the livelihood of America's doctors. Big insurance companies decide whether patients get the treatment they need, how much to pay doctors for each visit, and how much to charge doctors for medical malpractice insurance. The insurance industry itself admits that caps on damages in medical malpractice cases don't lead to lower insurance rates for doctors and rates are going up everywhere - even in states that have caps. It's unfair to ask patients to give up their legal rights so the insurance industry can make higher profits. Insurance companies should put people before profits.

For more information, see the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's press room site at: http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/medmal/medmal.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Association of Trial Lawyers of America

[Take 2]

Some people are mistreated by medical professionals. They deserve to have their damages paid.
But nobody "deserves" to receive punitive damages. Like any other fine for misdeeds, punitive proceeds should pay into general revenues for the jurisdiction whose law was violated (e.g., the state).

The insurance industry is not the problem -- it is mostly driven by market forces, meaning people.

Trial lawyers are but a small part of the problem.

The real problem is greed. For too many people, it's just another lottery. To the extent we are unwilling to control greed, the trial lawyers will feed on our selfishness, and everybody will pay for it.

[Brad Gile]

The real problem is greed. For too many people, it's just another lottery. To the extent we are unwilling to control greed, the trial lawyers will feed on our selfishness, and everybody will pay for it.
This is true, but far too many lawyers encourage it. As for tort reform, we are WAY overdue. When I started my actuarial career 34 years ago, torts were limited to cases where the defendant had demonstrably engaged in outrageous (tortious) conduct against the plaintiff. That standard clearly no longer exists. We need to restore it.

Brad

[Griffin 2]

Big insurance companies decide whether patients get the treatment they need, how much to pay doctors for each visit, and how much to charge doctors for medical malpractice insurance

I hate it when companies set the prices for their own goods and services.

[E. Blackadder]

Good laws and responsible judges can overcome any number of lawyers and any amount of propoganda.

[Father of two]

Insurance companies should put people before profits.

As if lawyers would ever do the same.

[Will Durant]

Good laws and responsible judges can overcome any number of lawyers and any amount of propoganda.
Unfortunately both of those seem to be in short supply nowadays.

[DW Simpson]

The President-Elect of the AMA and a law professor were on MSNBC's Hardball last night. The doctor and Chris Matthews took the lawyer to school http://www.msnbc.com/news/857538.asp .

[Elisha]

Looking at the incurred ratios for Med-Mal from this AMBest software I have for 97-01 definitely show that the lawyer is full of crap.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

"Insurance companies should put people before profits. "
They do.
1. People who own shares of the stock. The people who invested in the company so it can exist.
2. People who run the company, answer phones and pay claims, so it can exist.
3. The sales brokers and agents, who sell the products.
4. The members who are covered.

Maybe the order isn't to your liking.

[Polly Nomial]

I know next to nothing regarding pricing of med mal insurance, but I've been told that the prices rise when interest rates fall and vice verse. The size of the claims is only a secondary factor. Comments?

[ballyhoo]

I know next to nothing regarding pricing of med mal insurance, but I've been told that the prices rise when interest rates fall and vice verse. The size of the claims is only a secondary factor. Comments?

Boy! you sure know how to bring a thread to a acreeching halt. Next time you try to start a serious discussion, run it by Traci first. At least don't try it in the middle of an anti lawyer rally!

[TwistedMentat]

I know next to nothing regarding pricing of med mal insurance, but I've been told that the prices rise when interest rates fall and vice verse. The size of the claims is only a secondary factor. Comments?Ok, in an attempt to respond to the serious question:

In all lines of insurance, to the extent that the pricing actuary considers investment income on policyholder supplied funds and/or allocated surplus, the target underwriting profit margin (and therefore price) may increase or decrease if interest rates decrease or increase. Med Mal liabilities are generally of longer duration than most P/C lines, so projections of II on PHSF are more sensitive to interest rate assumptions. Surplus is usually allocated to lines based on variability of results and the duration of the liabilities, so Med Mal typically has large amounts of allocated surplus to premium and projected II on that surplus is large relative to premium and again sensitive to interest rate assumptions. However, given the sensitivity of the Med Mal target UPM to interest rate assumptions, I would not go so far to classify loss cost as a "secondary factor."

As an aside, one of the benefits of the shift toward the claims-made policy has been to reduce the impact of the interest rate assumption on the UPM by shortening the duration and reducing the variability of results.

[PK]

More on the effectes of interest rates...

Every time you hear a malpractice lawyer on the radio, he will say, "The only reason rates are up is because insurance companies lost so much in the stock market." (I have heard and read this at least 3 times in the last 2 weeks.)

TM comments are correct, to the extent that investmetn income is considered (and a malpractice ratemaker that did not consider II wouldn't keep their job long) it will drive the rate up or down depending on the assumed interest rate. But (he pauses for dramatic effect) the level of the stock market has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, as P&C insurance companies are not heavily invested in the market.

I looked at my companies annual statement for last year and v(alue of stocks)/(value of bonds) = .08. We actually had more cash at year end than the value of stock.

The legal lobby is convinced that it is an stock investment issue, and they are dead wrong.

P

[DW Simpson]

I don't think the legal lobby is necessarily convinced it is a stock investment issue. I don't think they care. I do think that they believe that framing it as that is the best strategy to continue to foist their foolishness onto an unsuspecting populace, along with the 'people before profits' baloney.

A segway into...

So doctors walk out in New Jersey to protest med mal rates? Hey, why don't NJ drivers walk out too? Oh wait, that wouldn't work either because the problems are more complicated than that. These people :shake: .

[Elisha]

I don't think the legal lobby is necessarily convinced it is a stock investment issue. I don't think they care. I do think that they believe that framing it as that is the best strategy to continue to foist their foolishness onto an unsuspecting populace, along with the 'people before profits' baloney.

A segway into...

So doctors walk out in New Jersey to protest med mal rates? Hey, why don't NJ drivers walk out too? Oh wait, that wouldn't work either because the problems are more complicated than that. These people :shake: .

Exactly. And lawyers wonder why the public hates them so much. :roll:

[PK]

What I hear you saying is the lawyers know better, but chose to lie when they speak to the media.

[Elisha]

What I hear you saying is the lawyers know better, but chose to lie when they speak to the media.

Well, duh! :)

[DW Simpson]

A new study by Weiss Ratings suggests that the rising cost of medical malpractice verdicts and settlements is not to blame for soaring malpractice insurance premiums in Florida. The study says that Florida doctors' median malpractice insurance premiums have soared 119% since 1991, while insurers' median payouts per claim have increased just 28%. Melissa Gannon, a Weiss vice president, says that insurers are using the higher premiums to make up for lower investment gains, deal with rising medical costs, and shore up reserves depleted when they under priced policies in the 1990s to gain customers. The insurance industry says the data leads to a bad conclusion because it only looks at median claims payouts, rather than the change in total payouts, according to the Palm Beach Post.

They compared premiums to payouts over the same period? Apparently Weiss is unfamiliar with the concept of mismatch.

[NoName]

Even worse, they used the median! That would be OK if insurance only had to cover the cost of the lower half of the distribution of payouts, but, really, to use the median in this context... :shake:

Some discussion here: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001453.html

[SamChevre]

Did they look at number of claims? Median per claim could stay exactly the same--if number of claims doubled, the premium SHOULD double.

[A Student]

I may be an ignorant life actuary, but my understanding is that median is even more inappropriate for this type of claim because it is the long tail that is the real killer. That's why the legislation is trying to limit the high claims.

Just another example of how to lie with statistics...