On the question of will the cap produce the intended results of lower malpractice premiums; GE Medical Protective, the largest malpractice insurer says no;
GE Medical Protective's finding was made in a regulatory filing with the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI),in a document submitted by GE to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.
In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice caps after Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change. According to the Medical Protective filing: "Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%."
So let me see if I understand this correctly; Bush and his cohorts are pushing for a cap on non-economic compensation that reduces attorney fees and plaintiff rewards, yet malpractice insurance premiums are allowed to rise with caps in place. Got it.
GE Medical Protective's finding was made in a regulatory filing with the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI),in a document submitted by GE to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.
In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice caps after Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change. According to the Medical Protective filing: "Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%."
So let me see if I understand this correctly; Bush and his cohorts are pushing for a cap on non-economic compensation that reduces attorney fees and plaintiff rewards, yet malpractice insurance premiums are allowed to rise with caps in place. Got it.
