Tort reform is a free-market based reform. The idea is that if we reduce the number of suits and limit awards, malpractice insurance companies will have to spend less on suits and awards. That part is valid. Where it gets iffy are the next parts. Those lower costs are supposed to translate into lower premiums, and that has some truth to it too, but there are no assurances all of the savings will translate into lower premiums:

“In 2004, as a result of having fewer claims to pay out, the state’s insurers reported their first profit directly from malpractice premiums since the Texas Department of Insurance began tracking the information in 1992.”

The final free-market effect predicted is that as a result of paying lower malpractice premiums, providers can charge less. They *could*, but *will* they? Apparently not necessarily:

“The caps have saved hospitals millions also. Texas Health Resources, the largest health system in D-FW, now pays $6.9 million in yearly malpractice premiums, down 41 percent from 2004, a spokeswoman said.

Baylor Health Care System, the area’s second-largest system, has seen its malpractice insurance premiums fall an average of 25 percent, said Paul Convery, Baylor’s chief medical officer.

But not one of the hospitals or doctors interviewed for this article said they are cutting the prices they charge to patients or health insurers. Instead, they’re reinvesting the savings in more and better health care.
[...]
For Texas patients, the cost of personal health care – from hospital stays to prescription drugs – continues to increase, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. From 2003 to 2004, the most recent data available, personal health care costs increased 7 percent, from $98.7 billion to $105.5 billion, the third-largest year-over-year increase since tracking began in 1980. The largest growth in spending occurred between 2000 and 2002.

Personal health care spending jumped from 10.6 percent of the state’s gross domestic product in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2004, according to the bureau.

Mr. Black, the UT professor, was not surprised by the lack of savings for patients. The promise of lower prices was a red herring from the start, he said. Medical malpractice costs – both in defense and in payouts – account for at most 2 cents of the health care dollar, he said. Others peg the percentage slightly higher.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-medmal_17bus.ART0.State.Edition2.43983f4.html

The last piece of the tort reform theory is that doctors will order fewer tests and procedures that fall under the heading of “defensive medicine, but since much of our medical system is based on the fee-for-services model, more care means more money for doctors, so again there is no guarantee doctors will change the way they practice medicine as a result of tort reform.

Texas, a Republican state, implemented tort reform five years ago. If it reduces health care spending so much, why hasn’t anyone use data from Texas to make that case? Tort reform is a popular idea for reducing health care costs because most people don’t like lawyers and it doesn’t actually involve reforming our health care system (it’s legal reform), but there is no evidence it will make a significant dent in the cost of health care.

Go to a state that has enacted "major tort reform overhauls" and ask any average person if their medical costs have decreased. Health care reform is about ensuring affordable access to care for every person legally in the nation; it is not about furthering disguised ideological positions such as tort reform. Aside from that, are doctors, contracted to perform services within the proposed public plan, protected against inflated negligence suits?

Also, one previous commenter floated state medical boards as a possible oversight option, which would overtly politicize the entire process.

The present system fails to provide justice for the injured and to punish the guilty. The worst a civil suit can do is make a doctor's insurance company pay. A state medical board review can revoke my license or impose any conditions they choose. They can also review all other records as well. We have great sympathy for those of us who were sued, but none for those sanctioned by the board. We order way too many tests to convince a lay jury of being thorough. I and other physicians reviewing a case wouldn't be fooled by that and it would stop.

The trial lawyers are actually right that many injured patients don't file complaints because of the lengthy and onerous civil proceedures. A prompt review by a medical board would be quite different.

This process would truly provide quick justice for the injured and protect the public from unsafe medical practitioners. The savings would easily cover the costs of the uninsured.

Why isn't it part of the current proposal?