Malpractice Insurance: Crisis or Stasis?
Medical malpractice insurance rates were flat for the year 2005, according to a new report from Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR). Rates rose 2% in both of the year's first two quarters, and 0% in the last two. This compares with quarterly spikes of 50% or more in 2001-2002. Proponents of malpractice "reform" have contended that runaway increases in claims payments fueled the explosive growth of premiums during that period, but AIR mounts a convincing case that the insurance investment cycle had more to do with the premium "crisis." AIR's evidence includes data showing trends in malpractice insurance premiums tracking the trends for other forms of insurance over the same period.
AIR is affiliated with the Center for Justice and Democracy, whose Board of Advisors comprises various academics from the progressive side of the spectrum, as well as such cultural icons as Erin Brockovich and Michael Moore. The "tort reform" crowd will say the study is biased on that account. They will also say that even if premium increases have run their course for the time being, premiums remain at "crisis" levels. The terms of political debate, that is, will simply adapt to fill whatever empirical space may remain available. All the same, the "malpractice reform" contingent seems to be losing argumentative elbow room with each new set of data.
We learned of the AIR report from a post at HealthLawProf Blog, which has more.
AIR is affiliated with the Center for Justice and Democracy, whose Board of Advisors comprises various academics from the progressive side of the spectrum, as well as such cultural icons as Erin Brockovich and Michael Moore. The "tort reform" crowd will say the study is biased on that account. They will also say that even if premium increases have run their course for the time being, premiums remain at "crisis" levels. The terms of political debate, that is, will simply adapt to fill whatever empirical space may remain available. All the same, the "malpractice reform" contingent seems to be losing argumentative elbow room with each new set of data.
We learned of the AIR report from a post at HealthLawProf Blog, which has more.
2 Comments:
I look forward to the day when the left will argue that increases in the poverty rate or AIDS count or global temperature can be disregarded because the second derivative is declining.
Leaving aside the fact that AIR committed amateurish data mistakes (either through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation), why do you give this report any credence, Peter, when its logical argument is a non sequitur on its face?
The left? You mean Jane Fonda?
Anyway, the argument is given credence based largely on the AIR figures suggesting (if credited) that the premium spikes originally used as justification for the most recent wave of "malpractice reform" were parallel to contemporaneous spikes in other lines. If that's correct, then the spikes aren't very compelling evidence of any sudden malpractice payout "crisis," and the basis for arguing the existence of any such "crisis" would have to be different. Not nonexistent, necessarily. Just different.
Post a Comment
<< Home