Tort reform and medical reform

My friend Budweiser and I get together about every three months for deep discussions of politics, wars, cars, and a few other things (never gossip or family news, to Carmen's frustration). Budweiser, who is a legal aid lawyer, has a bee in his bonnet about tort reform and medical care: he hates trial lawyers like the late John Edwards who specialize in tort cases, especially medical malpractice.

I thought he was a bit irrational about it until I read this from a reader of Andrew Sullivan's site. He says that he is a liberal, working for an insurance company researching doctors and malpractice. If you take his self description at face value he knows what he is talking about and certainly seems to have the facts and figures. It's enlightening in several aspects. Here is just one:

As much as the trial lawyer lobby tries to dispute the facts, physicians did indeed flee Illinois in 2002 and 2003 after the judicial climate turned completely poisonous. There was a period in 2004 and 2005 where there were only 4 Neurosurgeons practicing in the entire state because several fled to Indiana, where there is an elaborate system of caps and state-funded malpractice insurance. The cost of malpractice insurance in Indiana is about 75% less than Illinois, and claims frequency and severity is a tiny fraction of Illinois'.

And here is another:

my company, after we initiated an elaborate Risk Management program a few years ago through which insureds could receive discounts for attending seminars, improving office procedures, electronic medical records, etc., claims frequency dropped by 28%. The program encourages fewer unnecessary tests and instead stresses improved record keeping, patient tracking, etc. Most "failure to diagnose" claims (the most common type) are the result of poor record-keeping, not failure to run additional tests.

So now I will listen to Budweiser with new respect the next time we meet at Tank's Taproom, down in that unnamed port city to the south.