Doctors would like us to believe that their high medical malpractice insurance rates are the result of outrageous awards from juries. That, however, is not a position that is supported by the evidence, which means that their efforts to impose caps on damages hurts patients without also helping doctors.

Paul Waldman writes for Gadflyer:

A 2002 report by a congressional advisory commission reported that on average physicians pay only 3% of their revenue for malpractice insurance. Even in OB-GYN, the specialty with the highest rates, doctors paid only 6.7% of their revenue for insurance. Nonetheless, malpractice insurance costs have risen dramatically in the past few years. The insurance industry has convinced doctors that the reason is out-of-control jury awards in medical malpractice cases. But the facts tell a different story. According to a 2003 study by USA Today, less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning trial verdict. And while the amounts paid in malpractice claims have risen at the same rate as medical costs generally, the rates insurers charge doctors for coverage doesn't have anything to do with lawsuits.

So what determines malpractice insurance rates? The economy, or more specifically, the stock and bond markets. When insurance companies' investments in stocks and bonds make them lots of money – as they did in the 1990s – they lower premiums on doctors. When they don't make as much – as they haven't in the Bush economy – they raise premiums. (You can read more about this here. Since there's nothing insurance companies like less than paying out claims, they love the idea of capping damage awards. But they also knew that an insurance company trying to keep victimized patients from getting compensation doesn't present the most sympathetic face in a political debate. So they knew what they had to do: get doctors to carry water for them.

So they enlisted the support of the AMA; the AMA tells its members that their high premiums are caused by lawsuits; and the doctors tell their patients that unless they get on board with damage caps, their doctors will go out of business. Completing the circle are the Republican legislators who pass laws limiting medical liability, which are now on the books in many states (and no, these laws haven't resulted in lower premiums). Despite their alleged devotion to the principle of personal responsibility, these legislators believe that doctors shouldn't be responsible when they make deadly mistakes.

Why are doctors so gullible about this? I really don’t know. One would think that doctors would act a little more like scientists and look for facts and evidence in order to support their beliefs - especially since their beliefs are being used in a manner which could harm other people by limiting awards to those already injured by medical malpractice.

Of course, it doesn’t seem as though doctors are doing enough to rid their ranks of the bad doctors who cause most of the malpractice claims in the first place. If they don’t do enough to improve their profession by getting rid of the bad doctors, perhaps it isn’t surprising that they won’t do enough to double-check the claims about the sources for high insurance premiums.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics
• Bioethics