Trivial Pursuits

The Horror

Obviously, we've all experienced the nightmare of "virus-laden poo."

I'm traveling to Denver to see Dr. Brother TP this afternoon, so posting may be light today.  I'll just be hanging around downtown Denver for most of the day tomorrow, so I'll have more time to blogify y'all with copious TP then.

(For those of you waiting, expect interview questions tomorrow).

Ho Hum

Several studies on various aspects of caps on damages -- "tort reform" -- came out recently.

I particularly liked this study, confirming what TP has been saying for years.

The goal of our analysis was to describe the growth of physician malpractice payments—a factor widely believed to be the principal driver of the growth in malpractice premiums. Our study uncovered several salient findings.

Salient findings. First, focusing exclusively on judgments provides an incomplete picture of malpractice trends; judgments account for less than 4 percent of all payments and 5 percent all medical malpractice dollars. This overstates average malpractice payments but understates the per capita growth in payments. We found that the average payment grew 52 percent (4 percent per year) between 1991 and 2003 and now exceeds $12 per person each year. Excluding data on settlements would greatly understate the per capita number. We found that growth of the top 10 percent of payments is smaller than that of the average payment. This suggests that the large jury awards focused on by the AMA have not been key drivers of malpractice growth.

[emphasis added].

*yawn*

Hat tip to Evan Schaeffer.

More Name-Dropping

Small world.  A3G finishes her profile of the 2005 Supreme Court clerks with Justice Breyer's clerks.  One of them was, at one time, probably my closest friend in the world, attended our wedding, and is also very good friends with Dr. Ms. TP.

Unnamed J. Breyer Clerk, we offer you the highest honor we can bestow here at TP: the 21 Roll Salute.  Kudos!

Neat

In spite of how much I loathe politics, I gotta admit, it's kind of neat to see a front-page article on CNN regarding the impending confirmation of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen quoting a bunch of people whom I know and have worked with professionally on multiple occasions.

Maybe I'm not the serf I thought I was.

. . .

Nah -- definitely the serf.

Stem Cell Research

A brief foray into poliblogging:

Look, the question on the ethics of stem cell research is one on which reasonable people can differ.  I have no problem if you think it should be banned outright, or if you support the Bush administration policy on stem cell research, which is to limit federal funding for such research to the 20 stem cell lines that have already been developed (for the record, I don't for a variety of reasons, but as I noted, reasonable minds can differ on the question).

But I think it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that the Bush policy both correctly resolves the ethical problem while simultaneously allowing meaningful and significant stem cell research.  It just doesn't allow for such research, ok?

Dr. Pa TP is an academic physician who has spent his entire career writing grants, obtaining funding from the NIH and conducting research (some of which you've probably read about, honestly).  Whether you think it ought to be the case or not, a great deal of cutting-edge scientific research in this country is performed at academic medical centers that obtain their needed funding from NIH and the federal government.

Here, it's important to beware of the naturalistic fallacy (confusing "is" with "ought").   Maybe government should be smaller and give less money for research, but it is simply a fact of current scientific research that much of the most cutting-edge research is funded, at least in significant part, by federal monies.

Given that context, it is difficult to overstate the effect that restricting federal funding for research to only 20 adult stem cell lines has on the progress of such research.  It's something of a straw man to point out that privately funded research on stem cells is still possible.  Of course that's true, but the point isn't that stem cell research has been banned or completely halted, but rather that the rate at which the research progresses has been dramatically slowed by the Bush policy.  Without meaningful federal funding, the progess is incremental.

Just today, a breakthrough in stem cell research was announced -- in Korea.

Again, I am not suggesting that reasonable people cannot in good conscience support the Bush policy -- not at all.  I am simply saying that a necessary consequence of that policy is the marked slowing of the rate at which stem cell research can progress.

Color Me Not Surprised

Yawn.  TP's been saying this for what--nigh on 2 years, now?

Large medical malpractice verdicts and settlements were not to blame for a rapid increase in insurance premiums for Texas doctors and hospitals, according to a study to be released today.

The report by law professors at the University of Texas at Austin and elsewhere comes two years after Texas lawmakers and voters approved strict caps on malpractice damages. Congress now is considering similar limits.

As I said above, *yawn.*

Hilarious

Oh, I get it.  The proof that "tort reform," the core of which is caps on compensatory damages, works can be found in an insurer's decision to raise malpractice insurance rates by merely 10%, rather than 40%.

Man, that's rich.

Happy Trails . . .

I don't personally wish the man ill, and I hope none of his health problems are serious, but this is the best political news I've heard in some time. I've never disliked any political figure (except for Arafat, of course) as much as I dislike John Ashcroft. So I can't say I'm sorry to see him go, though, again, I wish him health and happiness in his personal life.

Onwards and upwards.

Zzzzzzzzz

Apparently, Botman is a bit upset, over what, I can't imagine.

Oh, that's right. There was a presidential election last night.

*yawn*

I Told You So

Rates of malpractice insurance have yet to come down in any significant quantity as a result of tort reform.

This is unsurprising, because, as we've noted ad nauseum here at TP, large jury verdicts have little to do with high malpractice premiums. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

So far, only one of five major insurers in Texas has agreed to lower rates. The Texas Medical Liability Trust, the state's largest medical malpractice insurer, agreed to lower premiums by 12 percent this year.

In May, state insurance regulators blocked an attempted end-run around regulations by G.E. Medical Protective Co., which had asked the Texas Department of Insurance to approve a 19 percent rate increase.

[. . .]

Gov. Rick Perry today begins a weeklong trip around the state to "talk about the great success the passage of Proposition 12 has had on patient access to health care," said his spokeswoman, Kathy Walt.

Walt said the fact that many doctors have not seen their liability rates fall is because of a "rush to the courthouse in the three months" prior to the law becoming effective.

Don't be ridiculous. How many of those cases have resulted in large jury verdicts? The mere fact that they have been filed cannot possibly be responsible for the maintenance of high rates, especially when those rates were not caused by large jury verdicts to begin with.