I just re-watched my two Senators yapping (with others) about how the Republicans have not had a chance to put their reform proposals forward, how they can "do something", etc.  And, through all of the Republican outcry, they keep coming back to how important it is for tort reform to be part of the mix.  Although I am philosophically opposed to their decades-long push to cap damage awards in malpractice cases, I began to wonder how much they think it would save us.  From the way they talk, you would think enacting their tort reform proposal would eliminate the need for us to address the rest of the system.

Wow!  Not only did I not realize how tort reform would NOT save more than either the House or the Senate bills would, but it is just about ALL of the savings that the Republicans want to put forward.

My conclusions are based primarily upon the CBO/JCT's Nov. 4 evaluation of the House Republicans' proposed amendment.  Verbatim, here is what the CBO/JCT letter said:

Limits on costs related to medical malpractice ("tort reform"), including

capping noneconomic and punitive damages and making changes in the

allocation of liability. CBO expects that those limits would reduce health

care costs directly--by reducing premiums for medical liability insurance

and associated costs--and indirectly by slightly reducing the utilization of

health care services. Over the 2010-2019 period, those changes would

reduce spending on mandatory programs by about $41 billion and would

increase revenues by $13 billion as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of

private health insurance plans (which would result in a shift of some

workers' compensation from nontaxable health insurance benefits to taxable

wages).

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf (emphasis added)

So, the tort reform proposal (which I am assuming is similar to the ones that Republicans have been unable to pass when they had control of the House/Senate/White House) does account for 79% of their plan ($54B out of $68B), but it pales in comparison to the $81B or the $104B which the Senate Finance proposal or the House-passed bill, respectively, reduce the federal budget deficit in the first 10 years.  (To say nothing of the savings to the states or to individuals.)

Next time you hear the GOP tout tort reform as a magic pill for our healthcare system, give them the CBO/JCT's second opinion.