AMERICAN ISSUES PROJECT

No one denies that our health care system needs some work. But the Baucus bill that would take us a step closer to government run health care is not the answer. Taking the American people a step closer to government run health care is not going to fix the system, nor will it save any money. And one of the best ways to cut health care costs is not addressed in the Baucus bill: tort reform.

We live in a predatory legal climate, where overzealous lawyers (like John Edwards) will sue almost anyone for anything. All a person has to do is feel slightly aggrieved, and they can undoubtedly find a lawyer willing to take up their case. And medical malpractice cases are thriving.

Doctors are finding malpractice insurance more necessary than ever, and their premiums are climbing higher and higher. The only way they can offset those costs is by passing them on to their patients. Trial lawyers like John Edwards prey on doctors, usually confident that doctors would rather settle out of court than go to trial.

Edwards himself was a notorious trial lawyer. His “specialty” was children with cerebral palsy. Using junk science and sleazy tactics, he tried over 60 malpractice cases and won over $1 million in half of those cases. According to Edwards, doctors ignored fetal heart monitors saying that the baby needed more air, and should have performed emergency cesarean surgeries. While there are ways to try to prevent cerebral palsy, United Cerebral Palsy doesn’t list Edwards birthing methods as one of them. And over the last thirty years, cerebral palsy rates have stayed the same, despite the fact that we have better fetal monitoring and more C-Sections performed. A Swedish report actually found that C-Sections increased the risk of cerebral palsy by 80%.

But of course, that didn’t stop him from using the junk science at trials to weasel money out of doctors who likely did absolutely nothing wrong. Edwards would actually pretend that the wronged child would speak through him at child, as if he was channeling them. This tactic, while sleazy and cheap, was successful. And thanks to Edwards and trial lawyers like him, doctors have suffered. From skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums to being forced to practice defensive medicine (such as the aptly named “when it doubt, cut it out” birthing method), the overly aggressive litigious atmosphere isn’t helping anyone -- not doctors and not patients.

There are surely patients who are victims of malpractice, and there are trial lawyers who are fighting for those true victims. But the majority of them are trial lawyers like John Edwards, just looking to exploit doctors to make a quick buck. And right now, there is literally nothing doctors can do about it unless some kind of tort reform is passed.

American Medical News (AMNews) notes the horrific effect this is having on the medical industry. Doctors have begun practicing what AMNews calls the “Three Rs”: restricting medicine, retiring early, and relocating. This makes patients lose access to vital care. In Tennessee in 2006, one of the states AMNews listed as in a “medical liability insurance crisis“, some frightening statistics were found. In Tennessee’s 95 counties, 85% don’t have a residing neurosurgeon in patient care. 52% don’t have a residing orthopedic surgeon in patient care. 49% don’t have a residing emergency physician in patient care. 44% don’t have a residing obstetrician-gynecologist in patient care. Just imagine if you were traveling through Tennessee and landed in one of these areas, needing emergency care. If you were in a car accident and had brain damage, for example, you might just be out of luck. And these are just the statistics for Tennessee -- that’s just one state. The states that don’t have these problems are a severe minority.

Unfortunately, overly aggressive and unmerited malpractice lawsuits are forcing doctors to either retire early or raise costs on their patients. Tort reform is desperately needed.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) even found that tort reform could save the federal government $54 billion over ten years, and would also cut national health care spending by roughly $11 billion every year.

Yet Democrats aren’t interested.

Republicans included tort reform in their health care plans; why isn’t Obama? Why aren’t the Democrats? They’re only focusing on expanding the government’s hold in the health care system, which would of course mean more power to the federal government.

Howard Dean had the easy answer: Democrats are too afraid of the backlash from trial lawyers, who don’t want to see their money well dry up. Democrats are more interested in appeasing their trial lawyer buddies than truly work for health care reform. They know perfectly well that tort reform is desperately needed in the medical industry; they’re just too corrupt and power-hungry to care.

---