Obama open to reducing malpractice suits to reduce medical costs
An uncontroversial position: there indeed should be fewer malpractice suits—but only if there are fewer instances of malpractice. Working solely on reducing the number of lawsuits without paying attention to the actual malpractice is a canonical example of "bending the needle": when the needle gets into the red on the boiler, you can fix the problem, or you can just bend the tip of the needle so it’s no longer in the red. Obama seems to be willing to bend the needle, a thoughtless and indefensible position.
First, malpractice suits are not all that common, and second, when one occurs, it generally is because there was serious malpractice.
Anesthesiologists used to get many malpractice suits, and that profession started examining carefully the errors and problems and why they occurred. They made many changes—for example, the fittings for the various gases they use are now specific to the type of gas, so that it’s not possible to accidentally attach the wrong gas to a fitting. As a result, the errors and problems went away, and with them the malpractice suits. That’s how to reduce malpractice suits: reduce malpractice. (BTW, a tiny number of doctors account for something like 80-85% of malpractice suits. That suggests barring those doctors from practice would also help a lot. How about a "three strikes and you’re out" rule. Right now the medical profession works hard to keep incompetent doctors in practice. Reminds one of those Catholic bishops protecting the pedophiles.
The American Medical Association has long battled Democrats who oppose protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits. But during a private meeting at the White House last month, association officials said, they found one Democrat willing to entertain the idea: President Obama.
In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits — a goal of many doctors and Republicans — can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials.
It is a position that could hurt Mr. Obama with the left wing of his party and with trial lawyers who are major donors to Democratic campaigns. But one Democrat close to the president said Mr. Obama, who wants health legislation to have broad support, views addressing medical liability issues as a “credibility builder” — in effect, a bargaining chip that might keep doctors and, more important, Republicans, at the negotiating table.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will go to the annual medical association meeting to face a group that has come out against a central component of his broader health care proposal — his call for a new public insurance program that would compete with the private plans. The White House says he will make the case that “reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health,” and how important it is to have the cooperation of doctors.
But whether he can get them on board is an open question. The speech comes as the president’s ideas on health reform are facing mounting criticism — not only from the A.M.A. and Republicans, who also vehemently oppose a new public plan, but also from the hospital industry, which is up in arms over a proposal Mr. Obama announced on Saturday to pay for his health care overhaul in part by cutting certain hospital reimbursements.
Medical liability is an important component of the debate, but that, too, is controversial. White House officials said Mr. Obama was likely to refer to the issue in his speech to the medical association, but would not offer any specific proposal.
Mr. Obama has not endorsed capping malpractice jury awards, as did his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But as a senator, he advanced legislation aimed at …
