I have yet to read from any refutation of this solution...

[healthmyths]

No one is talking about not allowing people who have been legitimately hurt by a patient provider from suing.
We are talking about reforms that limit damages to actual damage and cap pain and suffering at some reasonable level. The result is lower premiums for malpractice insurance and better care for patients, as doctors aren't ordering test after test just to cover themselves.

Most states already cap awards for noneconomic damages.

They haven't been particularly effective. So either defensive medicine is mythical, or it's going to take something other than approaches that are already in widespread use (i.e. caps on noneconomic damages) to stem it.

There's a paper this very month in Health Affairs exploring the latter possibility.

Previous comparisons of states with and without tort reforms (such as caps on damages, limits on attorney’s fees, and reductions in the time that plaintiffs have to file a claim) suggest that the presence of tort reforms does little to limit use of health care. This has led to inferences that the total cost of defensive medicine is low.23 An alternative explanation, empirically supported by previous work, is that the kinds of tort reforms that states have adopted to date do not appreciably reduce physicians’ level of malpractice concern,6 and it is perceived rather than actual risk that determines how physicians behave.

Policy approaches that target the underlying causes of physicians’ malpractice concerns might reduce defensive medicine more effectively than current estimates suggest. Being sued is associated with substantial distress for physicians, but tort reforms are generally aimed at lowering the cost of eventual payouts to the exclusion of other approaches. Physicians’ extreme dread of malpractice litigation may stem from their perception that it is unpredictable, uncontrollable, and potentially disastrous both financially and psychologically.6

To achieve this goal [reassuring physicians that medical injuries can be resolved expeditiously and fairly, in a less adversarial manner], reforms need to facilitate communication between physicians and patients about why adverse outcomes occurred; to explain, in some cases, that the standard of care was met; to provide reasonable compensation rapidly when it was not met; and to keep disputes from escalating into full-blown litigation. Several approaches are promising.23 Communication-and-resolution programs, in which health care institutions proactively disclose errors, apologize, and offer compensation before the patient files a claim, could reduce the numbers and costs of lawsuits and speed the process of resolution. So could expanded use of mediation.

Another, farther-reaching reform would be to replace litigation in the courts with an administrative compensation system, akin to workers compensation. Administrative compensation proposals typically suggest that patients should not have to prove that their providers were negligent, only that their injury could have been avoided in an optimal system of care. Although politically challenging, such proposals are appealing because trying to avoid the emotional distress of being labeled as negligent may drive a great deal of defensive behavior among physicians.

A final approach is to give care providers a strong defense to allegations of malpractice, known as a “safe harbor,” if they can show that they followed an applicable, well-accepted, evidence-based practice guideline. By promoting national, evidence-based standards of care, instead of holding physicians to the prevailing standard in their state or community, safe harbors also have the potential to reduce geographic variation in the provision of some services.33

Food for thought.

Well maybe these physicians surveyed don't know what they are talking about..

Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year.
This is 26% to 34% of all US healthcare costs.

• Up to 92% of US physicians practice defensive medicine.
• 76% of physicians report that defensive medicine decreases patient access to healthcare.
• 53% of physicians report delaying new techniques, procedures, and treatments due to fear of lawsuits.
• Patients most affected by defensive medicine include those visiting emergency rooms and those requiring surgery.
• Women are most affected by defensive medicine.
• Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
• 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.

Health News Observer ? Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles

These are NOT anecdotal but surveys returned data.
Also
In the almost 10-year period since the reforms were passed, it is possible to discern whether the reforms worked, whether any of the reforms went too far in abridging the rights of plaintiffs, and whether the stated goal of increasing access to health care was achieved.
By any measure, HB4 has achieved its stated goals. Just four years after HB4 passed, The New York Times observed:
"Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals and bring professional healthcare to some long-underserved rural areas."

Indeed, a former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association stated that it is unlikely that the volume of tort lawsuits will ever exceed one-half to two-thirds of pre-reform levels. This is a strong admission that many past suits should never have been filed at all and that the reforms in HB4 are working to discourage the filing of non-meritorious lawsuits.
Impact of Tort Reform on Economic Growth and Prosperity in Texas

 

[healthmyths]

60% of Senators are lawyers, and 37% of House members are lawyers.

lol, you're an idiot. Stop trolling.

HEY I don't disagree with your reasoning for WHY Tort reform wasn't in ACA!
YOU ARE RIGHT!!!

That doesn't though alter the FACTS!
THAT doesn't make me an idiot but shows how totally stupid you are for continuing to ask these representatives AND Obama to screw you over..."another one please sir"!!!
Just because I share the facts doesn't make me the f..king idiot here you dummy!
I am showing idiots like you the facts and you attack ME!
Wow!!! Intelligent!

"Tort reform" is not patient oriented. Allowing providers to be less accountable will not improve health care. Just because you take away someone's access to the courts doesn't mean things are going to get better. They are not. I won't say I've seen it all because when I do, I see something worse. But I've seen a lot. Americans need to retain the right to pursue medical negligence through legal means.

You keep saying you "seen a lot"!
Excuse me but you are stating ANECDOTAL i.e. subjective, i.e. your personal experiences and they are NOT the rule!
You and millions like you have become so attuned to thinking lead by the MSM that YOUR personal experiences are the NORM!
THEY ARE NOT! Whatever you experienced that may have been that makes you want to retain the CURRENT $850 billion a year in wasteful "defensive medicine" the physicians say they practice was YOUR personal experience!
And that is NOT the norm!

Besides NOT one person advocates giving up the right to pursue negligence... BUT what is wrong is the suing at the drop of a hat!
And it isn't the issue of going to court because less then 6% of these medical cases go to trial!
What happens is insurance companies because of the HIGH cost of going to court as well as all the time the physicians have to take away from their practice.. it is just simpler to settle!
And so they settle out of court over 94% of the cases!
Which in turn all the insurance companies do is just jack up the premiums! After all you are NOW paying for it or probably not cause it is too expensive!
It is just the simple ignorance of most Americans that this $850 billion a year is done as 90% of physicians say to keep from having to hire an attorney etc .... so THEY say what the hell... do duplicate tests, and insurance companies pay for it... ONE way or another!

Simple solution.. tax lawyers 10% just like Obamacare taxes tanning salons cause skin cancer!
Lawyers cause $850 billion a year in defensive medicine so take that $27 billion and pay the premiums of "MEANS tested" people that prove they can't afford insurance premiums!
Two things will occur!
A) If The defensive medicine costs decline so will the lawyers tax decline . Lower Defensive medicine means fewer and smaller claims!
B) Hospitals will NOT get away with padding and passing on "uninsured' because they will be paid!

Why is this such a complicated thing to understand?
4 million people truly need insurance.
$270 billion a year in legal services taxed at 10% yields $27 billion that pays the premium for 4 million uninsured!
VERY simple!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The healthcare industry makes money off every test they give you;

the last thing the industry wants to do is end 'defensive medicine'.

Tort reform won't save you money. Legal issues add maybe a couple percentage points to the cost of healthcare;

make malpractice insurance cheaper and the doctors aren't going to pass that savings along to you...

...they'll pocket the difference themselves. Afterall, why else do you think doctors want to pay less for malpractice insurance?

 

[The Rabbi]

The healthcare industry makes money off every test they give you;

the last thing the industry wants to do is end 'defensive medicine'.

Tort reform won't save you money. Legal issues add maybe a couple percentage points to the cost of healthcare;

make malpractice insurance cheaper and the doctors aren't going to pass that savings along to you...

...they'll pocket the difference themselves. Afterall, why else do you think doctors want to pay less for malpractice insurance?

So they pass along the higher costs but not the savings? What world do you live in?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The healthcare industry makes money off every test they give you;

the last thing the industry wants to do is end 'defensive medicine'.

Tort reform won't save you money. Legal issues add maybe a couple percentage points to the cost of healthcare;

make malpractice insurance cheaper and the doctors aren't going to pass that savings along to you...

...they'll pocket the difference themselves. Afterall, why else do you think doctors want to pay less for malpractice insurance?

So they pass along the higher costs but not the savings? What world do you live in?

The world where you don't give away the money you get from a tax cut, or a raise at work, or savings when the cost of something like your car insurance falls.

Think of your car insurance as malpractice insurance. If you managed for whatever reason to get a big cut in your annual car insurance bill,

who do you pass the savings along to?

 

[The Rabbi]

The healthcare industry makes money off every test they give you;

the last thing the industry wants to do is end 'defensive medicine'.

Tort reform won't save you money. Legal issues add maybe a couple percentage points to the cost of healthcare;

make malpractice insurance cheaper and the doctors aren't going to pass that savings along to you...

...they'll pocket the difference themselves. Afterall, why else do you think doctors want to pay less for malpractice insurance?

So they pass along the higher costs but not the savings? What world do you live in?

The world where you don't give away the money you get from a tax cut, or a raise at work, or savings when the cost of something like your car insurance falls.

Think of your car insurance as malpractice insurance. If you managed for whatever reason to get a big cut in your annual car insurance bill,

who do you pass the savings along to?

The local merchant selling something I otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Ka-Ching.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So they pass along the higher costs but not the savings? What world do you live in?

The world where you don't give away the money you get from a tax cut, or a raise at work, or savings when the cost of something like your car insurance falls.

Think of your car insurance as malpractice insurance. If you managed for whatever reason to get a big cut in your annual car insurance bill,

who do you pass the savings along to?

The local merchant selling something I otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Ka-Ching.

See? You would spend it on yourself, just like the doctors will with anything they save.