The tort "reformers" won't be happy with this; yet more evidence that medical malpractice lawsuits are not the problem with healthcare costs.

OK, here you go, short and sweet, the lede:

Fewer medical malpractice payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009 than any year on record, according to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

This finding contradicts claims that medical malpractice litigation is to blame for rising healthcare costs and that changing the liability system to the detriment of patients will not curb costs.

The value of malpractice payments was also the lowest since 1999. Adjusted for inflation, payments were at their lowest since 1992, a Public Citizen analysis of the NPDB shows.

Also part of the article, malpractice payments on behalf of doctors equals just 0.14 of 1% of overall US healthcare spending.

And for that, there are people who want to close the courthouse doors.

You can read the rest here: Analysis: Medical malpractice payments continue to fall.
--------------------
And prior commentary from me here:

• The False Premises of Medical Malpractice "Reform" (Response to Richard Epstein in WSJ) (6/30/09)

  There's an old saying, "garbage in, garbage out." If you use a false premise to substantiate an argument then the result will be worthless. And that is exactly what University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein does today in the Wall Street Journal (via PofL)...

  
  
• Do Texas Med-Mal Damage Caps Work? (What Do You Mean By "Work?") (4/14/09)

  But what, exactly does it mean for a statute to "work" when it reduces the ability of the most badly injured individuals to recover for their loss?
  
  Does offering government protectionism for tortfeasors mean it works?
  
  Does stopping those who've been victimized from recovering from their loss mean it works?
  
  Does destroying the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions mean it works?

• My Tort "Reform" Op-Ed in Today's Journal News (7/29/08)

  Re "Tort reform needed in New York state," a July 23 letter by Cortes E. DeRussy of Bronxville that blamed the "trial-bar friendly state Legislature" for refusing to enact malpractice reforms needed to keep doctors from fleeing the state:
  
  The DeRussy letter repeated a common myth in an argument for tort "reform," claiming that one of the primary reasons for increased medical malpractice insurance was "unusually high judgments." DeRussy couldn't be more wrong...

  
  
• The Medical Malpractice "Crisis" Hoax -- From Public Citizen (1/24/07)

  Since others had already pointed out the Public Citizen report exposing the hoax of a medical malpractice "crisis" I wasn't going to bother. But there was Pres. Bush last night at his State of the Union speech once again leading people astray, when he said:
  
  "And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, by passing medical liability reform."
  
  Good doctors, however, don't seem to be the problem. Since 1991, according to the report, 5.9 percent of U.S. doctors were responsible for 57.8 percent of the number of medical malpractice payments. That is an extraordinary statistic.

  
  
• Debunking Yet Another Tort "Reform" Column, This Time in Forbes (7/15/09)

  I feel like a broken record sometimes, rebutting the same disingenuous tort "reform" nonsense over and over. The latest comes from Forbes (via PofL), in a piece written by Manhattan Institute fellow John Avlon, regarding the amount that New York City pays out in settlements and verdicts....

• Why New York Medical Malpractice Insurance Jumped 14% (7/31/07)

  You may have seen the screaming New York headlines: Doctors hit with 14% increase in medical malpractice rates! Doctors in high risk specialties paying 6-figure insurance premiums! Insurance reserves so low carriers may become insolvent! Blame the lawyers! came the cry from the doctor's, for surely it must be due to medical malpractice cases. A little protectionism called tort "reform" would go a long way to curing the problem. Right?
  
  Ahh, but truth is another matter...

hat tip: JusticeDotOrg

Now I know what you're thinking with this headline: "John Stossel? You love the guy? He is always whining about trial lawyers, how can you love him?"

No, really, I do. Because for a writer, hypocrites like Stossel are like manna from heaven. This story is inspired by a little fluff interview with New York Magazine earlier today where this question and answer appeared:

Who is your mortal enemy?
Smug, ignorant, and arrogant Upper West Side Lefties and personal-injury lawyers

Awww, isn't that cute. Johnny-boy wants to kill me and all the other personal injury attorneys in the country. We're his "mortal enemy."

The guy must have been sued big time and got clobbered to have that type of hissy fit. Oh wait. It was the other way around.

That's why Stossel is so much fun to write about. You see, he was the plaintiff in a lawsuit after professional wrestler Dave Schultz slapped him twice. But he didn't just sue the wrestler that smacked him down, but the World Wrestling Federation as well. The case reportedly settled for $400,000. Here is the video of the two slaps (with an out take above): 


So what happened to change his mind? Usually, I refer to tort "reformers" as people who have never been seriously injured by the negligence of another. The hypocrites suddenly see the light when they become injured.

So here's my list of theories on why Stossel flipped backward after being compensated for his injury:

1. He wasn't seriously injured, but claimed that he was, and therefore assumes others that make claims are just like him;

2. He hated his own attorney, and therefore assumes others are just like him or her;

3. He realized that beating up on lawyers is super easy to do because when we defend ourselves we sound like, well, lawyers;

4. If you shill for big business, you get lots of speaking fees for conventions.

5. Since the time of that incident, he's been sued or threatened with suit a number of times and isn't too keen on being on the other side. From a profile on Stossel comes these revealing incidents that tend to support the "I hate being on the other side" theory:

Accuracy isn't one of Stossel's strong suits. He's admitted to making a number of serious mistakes in the past, he's been sued in connection with his reporting, and the "research" he's used to prop up his arguments has been routinely debunked by leading academics. In 2000, for example, Stossel declared that organic produce was worse for you than conventional fruits and vegetables; it turned out his report had been based on faulty research and he was forced to issue a public apology. When he argued that global warming was a myth, no less than 104 Nobel Prize winners took him to task. (For his part, Stossel said he was relying on another group of "unnamed" scientists.) More recently, he had to issue a correction and an apology to the evangelical pastor of an African-American church after he distorted his words.

Stossel is -- and this is fun to add -- not just a hypocrite on tort "reform" but on his avowed libertarian philosophy. He has stated that "Free markets, not coercive governments, are the consumer's best friend. The people who are really ripping us off are the lawyers, the politicians, and the regulators." Yet, when it comes to litigation, he wants Big Government to come riding to the rescue to protect him.

From a 2004 Washington Monthly story by Stephanie Mencimer comes this:

In April 2002, Stossel hosted a fundraiser in south Texas for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a corporate front group that was helping doctors seeking caps on malpractice lawsuit damages.

Ahh yes, Big Government coming in to protect negligent doctors. That is just what anti-government libertarianism is all about. Way to go Johnny-boy.

And now, after digging around a bit, I come to The Admission as to why he actually flipped. From the same Washington Monthly piece comes this whopper:

While he doesn't include it in the book, Stossel did once offer the real explanation. In what was perhaps a moment of candor back in 1996, when he was giving a speech to the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, someone asked Stossel why he had abandoned consumer reporting to bash government and trial lawyers. According to the Corporate Crime Reporter, Stossel replied, "I got sick of it. I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas."

If he ever decides to give up his career as a pseudo-journalist, he would make a perfect spokesman for the US Chamber of Commerce, which has, ahem, started its own frivolous lawsuit.

As a famous reporter has been heard to say, Hey, give me a break.

Over at Point of Law, Carter Wood points out that the American Association of Justice spent 1.33M in the 3rd quarter for congressional lobbying, much some of it on the health care bill. In his commentary, Wood says:

The filing provides more evidence that the trial lawyers helped craft language establishing state demonstration projects, preventing serious reform.

Now this is what the health care insurance industry spent: $38 million in 2009. (via WSJ Health Blog). [Update: This is limited to the health insurers, and does not, for instance, include drug makers. Also, note that the lobbying by the attorneys' group includes a wide array of consumer issues.]

One of the constants of the tort "reform" lobby is pointing out what consumer groups spend to preserve rights, and ignoring the vast sums that come out of the Fortune 500 to lobby for various corporate immunities.