This applies to a few sections in class, primarily in our discussion of public policy. It fits in our broader look at health policy as well as policy evaluation.
The story:
A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.
The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not only curb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.
But this goes beyond public policy, because its argued that tort reform was proposed as a way to minimize the financial power of trial lawyers, and their incentives to provide campaign contributions to Democrats. Was it a way to help Republicans dominate state elections? Some argue that Republican attacks on labor unions - which tend to skew Democrat as well - have the same intentions.
There are also claims that tort reform - by reducing damage awards - has made it more difficult for claimants to take cases to court. That adds an additional dimension to the story.
Since tort reform, some Texas residents have complained that they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a malpractice case because of the $750,000 cap on payouts for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. The limit often makes litigation cost prohibitive, patients and lawyers said. That concern was not raised in the paper, although the researchers said claims of huge malpractice payouts and rampant "frivolous" lawsuits before tort reform are greatly exaggerated by its advocates.
